Article Text
b h HOLDS DEPOSIT V S in t IN BANK TO BE FUND OF TRUST Supreme Court Reverses the Judgment Entered in Case of Russell Versus Bank of Nampa. Instructions Given by Plaintiff to Cashier Were Not Followed and Money From Draft Was Received Following Failure. Where a party who is indebted to a bank leaves with it, as security, notes belonging to him, and authorizes it to collect upon them and apply a portion of the proceeds to the payment of his debt. and instructs it to not deposit the balance, but to deliver it to a third person, and the cashier, contrary to such instructions, deposits the balance in the bank, such balance is not a general, but a special deposit, or trust fund. The supreme court of this state makes the above important ruling in a decision reversing the judgment given the defendants by Judge Ed. L. Bryan of the Seventh judicial district court for Canyon county in the case of C. P. Russell versus the Bank of Nampa, E. Smallwood, as special deputy bank commissioner and receiver of said bank. FACTS IN CASE. W. W. Russell was indebted to the Bank of Nampa in the sum of $1,666.20 and to secure the payment of the indebtedness certain notes, amounting to $3250, secured by mortgage, executed and delivered to him by August Felise and Eveline Felise, were left at the bank. These notes were assigned to his father, the plaintiff, subject to the claim of the bank for $1400. August Felise sent a draft of $3035 to the bank in settlement of the indebtedness and the $1,666.20 was applied in payment of the indebtedness of W. W. Russell to the bank and the balance, $1,368.80, was placed to his credit and the draft was forwarded by the bank for collection. Later the bank, being insolvent, closed its doors and Smallwood was named receiver. Russell instituted action to recover the $1,368.80 on deposit to the credit of W. W. Rus-