Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

State v. Wagener......

Supreme Lodge v. Stein....

......

...................120 Cal. 521.. .186

.....120 Cal. 59
96 Wis. 141......

155 35

Hus. & Wife-Act'ns. 19 Ind. App. 252..402 ..Fraud't Convey'ces.. 24 Colo. 527......251

[ocr errors]

Waters

Judgments
Married Women

...Officers.

..........

.Contempt....

........

96 Wis. 103......

30

186 Pa. St. 623....886

58 Ohio St. 612...792 97 Wis. 1........

90

..Constitutional Law.. 58 Ohio St. 599...185

Municipal Corp'ns.. 122 N. C. 1092....743

..Mayhem.............

...Animals..

..Banking.
.Officers..
Taxes....

.....

..........

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

17

58 Ohio St. 417...769 ,,104 Iowa, 305.....463 96 Wis. 1...... 58 Ohio St. 505...781 143 Mo. 287.......653 69 Minn. 104.....553

69 Minn. 206.....565

Beneficial Assns.... 75 Miss. 107.....589

Teutonia Loan etc. Co. v. Turrell..Notaries Public..... 19 Ind. App. 469.419 Thompson v. Connell.............Judgment...

Tracy v. Hacket.....

Libel....

....

31 Or. 231....... .818

19 Ind. App. 133.398

Tradesmen's Nat. Bank v. Kent Warehousemen.. ....186 Pa. St. 517....876

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

AMERICAN STATE REPORTS.

VOL. LXV.

CASES

IN THE

SUPREME COURT

OF

WISCONSIN.

STATE V. SHOVE.

[96 WISCONSIN, 1.]

BANKS AND BANKING-RECEIPT ON DEPOSIT, WHAT IS.-If a certificate of deposit is issued by a bank for money received, payable in one year, with interest, and not subject to check, the money is received on deposit within the meaning of a statute mak. ing it a crime for an officer of a bank to accept or receive money on deposit if he knows, or has reason to know, that the bank is unsafe or insolvent.

BANKS AND BANKING-CRIMINAL RECEIPT OF DEPOSIT.-Although a portion of the money for which a certificate of deposit is issued by a bank consists of that represented by a prior certificate of deposit against the same bank and surrendered at the time that the last deposit is made, the last deposit and the certificate therefor must be treated as if the whole amount had been deposited in cash.

BANKS AND BANKING-TO PROVE THE INSOLVENCY OF A BANK at the time a deposit was made, evidence is admissible of the amount of deposits in the bank, including those for which certificates not yet due have been issued and of indebtedness due to the bank and its value as part of the assets.

Information against, and conviction of, the defendant for receiving a deposit of money contrary to the terms of a statute. On the trial, for the purpose of showing the insolvency of the depositary at the time alleged in the information, the state was permitted to prove, over the objection and exception of the defendant, the amount of deposits in the bank, including those for which certificates had been issued, at that time, and the indebtedness of other people to the bank and the value of their commercial paper held by the bank as part of its assets.

[blocks in formation]

T. A. Gilman, B. M. Goldberg and C. W. Felker, for the appellant.

W. H. Mylrea, attorney general, J. L. Erdall, assistant attorney general, and A. J. Schmitz, assistant district attorney, for the state.

...

CASSODAY, C. J. The defendant was, at the time in question, the president, manager, director, and stockholder of the "T. C. Shove Banking Company." As such, he was convicted of having received on deposit April 11, 1892, the three hundred dollars mentioned, contrary to section 4541 of the Revised Statutes. Eliminating from that section what is not applicable here, and it declares, in effect, that "any officer, director, stockholder, . . . manager, . . . . or agent of any bank, . . who shall accept or receive on deposit, or for safekeeping, or to loan, from any person, any money, or any bills, notes, or other paper circulating as money, or any notes, drafts, bills of exchange, bank checks, or other commercial paper for safekeeping or for collection, when he knows, or has good reason to know, that such bank . . . . is unsafe or insolvent, shall be punished by imprisonment," et cetera. The constitutionality of this statute has been repeatedly sustained by this court, and its validity is not now challenged: Baker v. State, 54 Wis. 368; In re Koetting, 90 Wis. 166.

1. The principal contention of counsel for the defendant is to the effect that the certificate reciting that Hattie J. Glye had "deposited" in the bank three hundred dollars, payable one year from the date thereof, and then with interest, and not subject to check, made the transaction a loan, and not a deposit, and hence not within the condemnation of the statute. The argument is, that the bank simply borrowed the money and gave its promissory note therefor, due in one year from date, and therefore did not accept or receive the money on deposit, nor for safekeeping, nor to loan, nor for collection, within the meaning of the statute.

We assume that the bank had authority, as incident to its necessary powers to carry on such business, to issue such time certificates: Sanborn and Berryman's Annotated Statutes, sec. 2024, subsec. 21; Rockwell v. Elkhorn Bank, 13 Wis. 653; Ballston Spa Bank v. Marine Bank, 16 Wis. 120; Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 9, 295, subd. 5. In construing the statute in question, this court has, among other things, said: "The manifest object of the statute in question was to suppress the business of banking or

« AnteriorContinuar »