State ex rel. Sorensen v. Farmers & Merchants Bank
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- Logan v. Farmers & Merchants Bank (Neb. 1935)
- State ex rel. Sorensen v. South Omaha State Bank (Neb. 1934)
- State ex rel. Sorensen v. State Bank (Neb. 1934)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In a proceeding in the district court for Saunders county to wind up the affairs of the Farmers & Merchants Bank of Weston, an insolvent banking corporation, the First National Bank of Wahoo as claimant and intervener presented a petition for the recovery of a trust fund of $100 payable in full out of bank assets in the hands of the receiver, in preference to claims of depositors and other creditors. The receiver had previously rejected the trust-fund theory of intervener, but had ranked and allowed its claim in the class with preferred depositors and holders of exchange. The claim arose in the following manner: April 14, 1930, A. H. Thege went into the Farmers & Merchants Bank of Weston, and, though not a. depositor, legally turned over to it the equivalent of $100 in money and received therefor a cashier’s check on that bank for $100. April 15, 1930, he presented the cashier’s check to the First National Bank of Wahoo, now claimant and intervener, and received therefor $100. The Farmers & Merchants Bank of Weston went into the hands of the receiver and never paid the cashier’s check. The plea of intervener is that the $100 represented by the cashier’s check went into the Farmers & Merchants Bank, was never withdrawn, is now in the hands of the receiver
The essential facts are not in dispute. There are now precedents for the following rules: A check on a bank does not operate as an assignment of funds therein to the amount of the check, a former rule to the contrary having been changed by statute. Comp. St. 1929, sec. 62-1606; State v. State Bank of Belvidere, 122 Neb. 797. By purchasing a cashier’s check, bank draft or certified check, the purchaser usually becomes a creditor of the bank and the holder of exchange, and not the beneficiary of a trust, in absence of special circumstances creating the relation of trustee and beneficiary. State v. State Bank of Belvidere, 122 Neb. 797; State v. First State Bank of Alliance, ante, p. 23. These rules, when applied to the undisputed facts, require a finding that intervener did not make a case entitling it to payment in full on the basis of a trust fund in the hands of a receiver. Intervener’s claim was properly classified by the receiver. The judgment of the district court is reversed and the cause remanded for a decree conforming to this opinion.
Reversed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.