lO@4

80 FEDERAL' REPORTER.

R,EDWOOD 00. v. BELCHER et a1. (OircuIt Court, N. D. can·· tornla. April 12, Ism.) Bill in equity to have the respondents decreed to bold, In trust tor the coniPlainant, the legal title to· a certaIn quarter section ot land. Bm dismIssed. Page, McCutchen & Eells, tor compJalnant. Henley & Oostello, tor respondents, MORROW, DIstrict· JUdge. This case presents substantially the same questions which were ra1fl0d In the case ot Oalltornla Redwood Co. v. Litle (No. 11" 812; just decIded) 79 Fed. 864; and upon the authority of that case, and ot the case of Mortgage Co. v. Hopper, 12 C. O. A. 293, 64 Fed. 553, the bill will be dismIssed, with costs.

ant, the legal title to a certain quarter section of land. Bill dismissed. Page, McCutchen & Eells, for complainant. Henley & Costello, for respondent. MORROW, DistrIct Judge. ThIs case presents SUbstantially the same questions as were raised In the case of California Redwood 00. v. Lltle (No. 11,812; just dec1ded) 79 Fed. 854; and upon the authority of that case, and of the case ot Mortgage Co. v. Hopper, 12 C. C. A. 293, 64 Fed. 553, the bill will be dismissed, with costs.

Bill In equIty to have the respondent decreed to hold, in trust for the complain-

CALIFORNIA REDWOOD 00. v. MAHAN.

(CirCUit Oourt, N. D. California.)

CALIFORNIA REDWOOD CO. v. SMITH et al. (Circuit Oourt, N. D. Oallfornia.) Blll In equity to have the respondents decreed to hold, In trust for the complainant, the legal title to a certain quarter section of land. Bill dismIssed. Page, McCutchen & Eells, for complaInant. Henley & Costello, tor respondents. MORROW, District JUdge. This case presents suhstantlally the same questions as were raIsed In the case of CalifornIa Redwood Co. v. Litle (No. 11,812; just decIded) 79 Fed. 854; and upon the authority of that case, and of the case of Mortgage Co. v. Hopper, 12 C. C. A. 293, 64 Fed. 553, the bill will be dis, missed, wIth costs.

=

FOURTH ST. NAT. BANK v. YARDLEY. (Olrcult Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. No.8.
BANKS AND BANKING-EQUITABLE ASSIGNMENT-CIIECKS AND DRAFTS-SPECIAL AGREEMENT.

April 23, 1891.)

Appeal from the Olrcult. Court ot the United States tor the Eastern District ot Pennsylvania. This was a suIt in equity by the Fourth Street National Bank agaInst Robert M. Yardley, receIver of the Keystone National Bank, to subject moneys In hill hands to the satisfaction of an alleged equitable charge or lien thereon. The circuit court dismissed the bill, and complainant took an appeal to the circuit court of appeals. The latter court certified certain questions to the supreme court for decision, and, having received its answers thereto (see 17 Sup. Ct. 439), has now following opinion. filed R. C. Dale, tor appellant. Silas W. Pettit, for appellee. Before ACHESON, CircuIt Judge, and BUTLER and GREEN, District Judges. PER CURIAM. In this case this court certified to the supreme court of the United 'States two questions of law arising upon the facts of the case, which facts, as stated in our certificate, are as follows: "On the 19th day of March,

MEMORANDUM DECISIONS.

1005

1891, the sald Fourth Street National Bank advanced twenty·five thousand dol· lars ($25,000) In clearing-house gold certificates to the said Keystone National Bank to enable it to meet its debtor balance in the Philadelphia clearing house under these circumstances: On saId date Gideon W. Marsh, the president of the Keystone National Bank, acting on its behalf and by Its authority, came to the banking room of the said Fourth Street National Bank, in the city of PhUadelphia, and there represented to the oftl.clals of that bank that the Keystone National Bank owed a balance at the clearing house which It could Dot meet, because its funds were In the city of New York, and exhibited to them a memorandum show· ing a balance to the credit of the Keystone National Bank in the Tradesmen's National Bank of the city of New York of about twenty-seven thousand dollars ($27,000), stating that his bank wished to draw against it and get clearing-house certificates; Ilnd he asked the Fourth Street National Ban);: to accept the draft of the Keystone National Bank for twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) against this 'reserve account In the New York bank,'-that Is to say, against the said fund In the Tradesmen's National Bank,-and give his bank clearing-house gold certificates therefor. Relying upon these representations of Marsh, and on the faith of his statement, supported by the said memorandum, that the Keystone National Bank had In the Tradesmen's National Bank the specified fund against which it proposed to draw, the Fourth Street National Bank gave Marsh, for the use of the 'Keystone National Bank, clearing-house gold certlfl.cates to the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000), and took its draft, of which the fol. lowing is a copy: 'Keystone National Bank, No. 5086. Philadelphia, March 19, 1891. Pay to the order of R. H. Rushton, cashier, ($25,000,) twenty-five thousand dollars. John Hayes, Cashier. To the Tradl'.smen's National Bank, New York.' R. H. Rushton was the cashier of the Fourth Street National Bank. The books of the Keystone National Bank show that on the 19th day of March, 1891, it had to its credit in the Tradesmen's National Bank of the city of New York the sum of twenty-six thousand nine hundred and seven and 82/tOO dollars ($26,907.32), and on the same day an entry was made therein charging against that credit the said draft for twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) it had given to the Fourth Street National Bank. The draft for twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) was duly forwarded to New York for collection, and was presented for payment to the Tradesmen's National Bank on the morning of March 20, 1891. Payment thereof was refused upon the ground that the drawee had not In hand funds of the drawer suftl.cient to pay the same. In fact, the Tradesmen's Na· tional Bank had in cash and in collection items (drafts) for the Keystone National Bank the sum of twenty-six thousand nine hundred and seven and 82/ 100 dollars ($26,907.32), of which eighteen thousand and fifty-six and 21/t00 dollars 056.21) were remitted by the latter-named bank to the former on March 19, 1.891, and the rest previously. The Tradesmen's National Bank then had in hand in cash, to the credit of the Keystone National Bank, the sum of nineteen thousand seven hundred and twenty-five and 62/ 100 dollars ($19,725.62), and had In addition the said collection items to make up the full sum of twenty-six thousand nine hundred and seven and 82/tOO dollars ($26,907.32). Afterwards this money was paid, and the said collection items or drafts were turned over to Robert M. Yardley, the receiver of the Keystone National Bank, and out of the collection items he realized sixty-one hundred dollars ($6,100), and he thus had In his hands from this source, when the bill in this case was filed, the sum of twenty-five thousand eight hundred and twenty-five and 62/ 100 dollars ($25" 82/S.62) in cash. On the 20th day of March, 1891 (some time during the mornIng), by the order of the comptroller of the currency of the United States, the Keystone National Bank was closed, and thereafter Robert M. Yardley was appointed receiver thereof." The two questions propQunded to the supreme court were theSe: . "First. Do the above facts show' an equitable assignment by the Keystone National Bank to the Fourth Street National Bank of twenty-five thousand dollars of the fund, consisting of cash and collectioll items or drafts, as aforesaid, belonging to the Keystone National Bank, In the hands of the Tradesmen's National Bank? Second. If the stated facts do not show such equitable assignment of the whole twenty-five thousand dollars. do they show such equitable assignment of the cash so In the hands of the Tradesmen's National Bank, namely, the sum of nineteen thOUsand seven hundred and twentyfive and 62/ 100 dollars?" We have received from the supreme court of the