Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
HIGH COURT RULES IN BANKING CASE
Holds That Sanders Not Entitled to Preference.
Five justices of the supreme court of South Carolina yesterday filed their opinions in case from Bamberg county, involving the right of G. Sanders to preferred claim upon the assets of the defunct Bamberg Banking company. Three of the justices upheld the lower court, which had ruled that Sanders did not have preferential claim and two took contrary view. The that of G. D. Sanders, petitioner, appellant, in re, ex parte, South Carolina Savings bank, petitioner, in re, the liquidation of the affairs the Bamberg Banking company-the South Carolina Savings bank, receiver, appellant. prevailing opinion was L. justice the supreme set forth that December 1930, Sanders sented at the window of the Bamberg Banking company for check for $3,273, drawn by the bank in favor of M. Sanders, indorsed the same and delivered to Sanders. At the the time, drawer of the check had in the bank sufficient amount to pay was charged the customer's account, and Sanders was given the sum cash draft on the South Carolina bank Charleston for the balance, $3,173. The Bamberg company the time deposit its the South Carolina National bank Charleston more sufficient money the draft. The Bamberg Banking company failed and closed its doors January 1931. The respondent, the South Carolina bank, appointed receiver closed and now engaged in the business of such When the bank closed, G. D. San ders had not the $3,173 issued him December 1930 After Bamberg Banking company had closed, Sanders presented his draft the demanding that be paid full in preferred claim under the provisions an act 1930. The receiver declined pay the claim as one claimant, D. Sanders, filed petition the of pleas praying that court issue order the receiver to pay the full one priority, the act 1930. The matter came up for hearing before Special Judge who issued an order in which he held that the act 1930 was unconstitutional and further held that the titioner was not entitled preferbecause the banking company were not by reason the the titioner with From this order petitioner The court sustained the ruling the lower court. The opinion by Bonham was concurred in results were concerned by John Stabler, associate justice, and by Featherstone, acting associate justice find no error in the holding of the circuit judge, Justice presented check for and received $100 cash draft the South Carolina bank Charleston for $3,173 in exchange The check presented the petitioner to Bamberg Banking company was then charged to the account the drawer, who was one its cusmtoetshrdoil one of its customers; the bank's assets were reduced by that amount. the like amount on the bank was never for never paid the Bamberg bank failed, the bank paid the receiver of $7,000 which the Bamberg bank deposit it. This simply restored the status was when the tioner presented his check. amount by which the bank's assets depleted by charging the amount the check to its customer's account, was restored the Charleston bank paid that receiver Certainly the funds of the banking company not transaction. Eugene chief filed dissenting opinion, saying that his opinion Mr Sanders titled the preference he claimed, and that the "order appealed from should be reversed. discussing the matter he points out the danger that might many checks for large demand payment, from banks. Such he might 'runs solvent banks bring disaster consequence acting associate justice, also filed concurring in part, with that of the chief justice.
