Petray v. First National Bank

SHAW, J.,

pro

tem.

The plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of the defendant, and from an order denying her motion that the judgment be vacated and a new judgment in her favor be entered upon the findings. The record upon which both appeals are presented contains the judgment-roll and a bill of exceptions showing the proceedings upon the motion, but none of the evidence given at the trial. We must therefore presume that the evidence supported the findings, and construe the latter as strongly as their language will permit in favor of the judgment, resolving any uncertainties therein against the appellant. The important facts are set forth in the following findings:

“II. That on the 14th day of September, 1922, there was deposited with defendant to the account and credit of plaintiff the sum of $1,800.

“III. That thereafter on the 8th day of November, 1922, one J. K. Russell, the cashier of defendant, without the knowledge of plaintiff, withdrew from defendant said sum of $1,800, which said sum was charged against plaintiff’s account and said Russell at said time drew and executed his promissory note for said sum in favor of plaintiff payable on demand and placed said note in a sealed envelope with other papers of plaintiff being held by said defendant for plaintiff for safe keeping.

“IV. That prior to said 8th day of November, 1922, plaintiff had authorized said J. K. Russell to loan said money of plaintiff ‘on good security’ for the purpose of making and collecting loans for her and that at all of said times the said Russell was the duly elected and acting cashier of said defendant.

“V. That on or about the 7th day of March, 1924, plaintiff, at the banking room of defendant, discovered for the first time that there was no loan with security therefor, or that said sum of $1,800 was not to her credit with defendant and then and there received from defendant said sealed note.

“VI. That thereafter said plaintiff demanded of said Russell payment to her of the interest as provided in said note and thereafter demanded of said Russell the- payment

[89]