Marshall v. Bank of Beaufort

Adams, J". Tbe controversy must be determined upon tbe facts found by tbe court, wbicb are no less conclusive than tbe verdict of a jury. When tbe plaintiff delivered bis check for $8,000 to- tbe cashier for tbe purchase of State bonds, tbe bank gave tbe plaintiff a receipt in wbicb it was stipulated that tbe bonds should be delivered to him upon demand and upon bis surrender of tbe receipt, and that record of tbe check should be entered on bis book only when tbe bonds were placed in bis bands. Tbe parties evidently contemplated no change in tbe relation previously existing between them until tbe bonds were turned over to tbe plaintiff. The simple relation of debtor and creditor does not constitute a preference. Williams v. Hood, Comr., 204 N. C., 140. There is no finding that tbe plaintiff actually withdrew any funds from the savings department and then gave them to tbe bank under a specific agreement that tbe money was to be used in purchasing tbe bonds. Blakey v. Brinson, 286 U. S., 254, 76 L. Ed., 1089. Indeed, tbe findings of fact set out in tbe judgment are wanting in about all tbe indicia by wbicb a trust deposit or a deposit for a specific purpose is usually established. Par ker v. Trust Co., 202 N. C., 230. According to all tbe recent decisions of this Court dealing witb tbe subject tbe judgment should be affirmed. Dupree v. Harrell, 205 N. C., 595; In re Bank of Pender, 204 N. C., 143; Bank v. Corp. Com., 201 N. C., 381. Affirmed.