preferred claim in Iowa

1933Iiams, was not one purchased for the bona fide transfer of funds; that claimant is not entitled to preference thereon, and that said claim should be denied as a preferred claim, but should be established as a depository claim against said trust.” This case is controlled by section 11, chapter 30 of the Acts of the Forty-Third General Assembly, which is now section 9239-cl of the 1931 Code, which provides as follows: “* * * Any money paid in the usual course of business to any bank, or trust company for the purchase of a draft for the bona fide transfer of funds shall be a preferred claim again

1933Iiams, was not one purchased for the bona fide transfer of funds; that claimant is not entitled to preference thereon, and that said claim should be denied as a preferred claim, but should be established as a depository claim against said trust.” This case is controlled by section 11, chapter 30 of the Acts of the Forty-Third General Assembly, which is now section 9239-cl of the 1931 Code, which provides as follows: “* * * Any money paid in the usual course of business to any bank, or trust company for the purchase of a draft for the bona fide transfer of funds shall be a preferred claim again

1934That a preferred claim is not entitled to the payment of interest appears to be the rule accepted by this court in Leach v. Sanborn State Bank, 210 Iowa 613 , 231 N. W. 497 , 69 A. L.

1934That a preferred claim is not entitled to the payment of interest appears to be the rule accepted by this court in Leach v. Sanborn State Bank, 210 Iowa 613 , 231 N. W. 497 , 69 A. L.

1932We have allowed recovery as a preferred claim where a deposit was wrongful in Leach v. Stockport Savings Bank, 207 Iowa 478 ; Andrew v. Farmers Savings Bank of Goldfield, 207 Iowa 394 ; Andrew v. Winnebago County State Bank, 208 Iowa 392 ; Leach v. Farmers & Merchants Savings Bank, 202 Iowa 881 ; Page County v. Rose, 130 Iowa 296 .

1926As bearing somewhat upon the question herein discussed, see Page County v. Rose, 130 Iowa 296 .

1930Bank, 198 Iowa 692 , was allowed by the district court of O’Brien County as a preferred claim in favor of the county.

1927Bank, 198 Iowa 692 , the county or the treasurer would. be entitled to -have this-claim allowed as a preferred claim; and we have held, under similar circumstances, -in the ease of Leach v. Farmers & Merch.

2022In other words, “The preferred analysis is to first determine the date the injury is deemed to have occurred . . . , and then to examine whether the statutory period commenced on that date or whether it commenced upon a later date based upon application of the discovery rule.” Id. at 288 .

1976As to constitutionality of the statute involved, see State v. Winquist, 247 N.W.2d 256 (Iowa).

1976It is the preferred instruction under both the court’s opinion and the dissenting opinion in State v. Janssen, 239 N.W.2d 564 (Iowa).

1935The trial court *850 properly charged her with the receipt of $4,000 of property and this was a proper charge in the accounting.” We also said in the similar case of Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Daiker, 166 Iowa 728 , at page 743, 148 N. W. 1020 , 1025: “Moreover, there being no showing of express fraud on 'the part of Peter Daiker [grantee], his title could be set aside only upon allowing him as a preferred claim the value of the consideration he had in good faith furnished his parents pursuant to his agreement.” In the case of Cox v. Collis, 109 Iowa 270 , 80 N. W. 343, 344 , where there was

1935The trial court *850 properly charged her with the receipt of $4,000 of property and this was a proper charge in the accounting.” We also said in the similar case of Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Daiker, 166 Iowa 728 , at page 743, 148 N. W. 1020 , 1025: “Moreover, there being no showing of express fraud on 'the part of Peter Daiker [grantee], his title could be set aside only upon allowing him as a preferred claim the value of the consideration he had in good faith furnished his parents pursuant to his agreement.” In the case of Cox v. Collis, 109 Iowa 270 , 80 N. W. 343, 344 , where there was

1935The trial court *850 properly charged her with the receipt of $4,000 of property and this was a proper charge in the accounting.” We also said in the similar case of Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Daiker, 166 Iowa 728 , at page 743, 148 N. W. 1020 , 1025: “Moreover, there being no showing of express fraud on 'the part of Peter Daiker [grantee], his title could be set aside only upon allowing him as a preferred claim the value of the consideration he had in good faith furnished his parents pursuant to his agreement.” In the case of Cox v. Collis, 109 Iowa 270 , 80 N. W. 343, 344 , where there was

1934The cases of Leach v. Farmers Savings Bank, 205 Iowa 114 , 213 N. W. 414 , 217 N. W. 437 , 56 A. L.

1934The cases of Leach v. Farmers Savings Bank, 205 Iowa 114 , 213 N. W. 414 , 217 N. W. 437 , 56 A. L.

1933On the 22d day of December, 1932, the court entered an order in which it found that it was bound by the decision of the Supreme Court in Ellis v. Citizens Bank of Carlisle, 211 Iowa 1082 , 234 N. W. 849 ; that the intervener was not entitled to have its claim established as a preferred claim against the receiver of the Citizens Bank of Pleasantville; and ordered and decreed that the intervener’s claim be denied as a preferred claim, and that the act of the receiver in allowing said claim as a general claim be confirmed.

1933On the 22d day of December, 1932, the court entered an order in which it found that it was bound by the decision of the Supreme Court in Ellis v. Citizens Bank of Carlisle, 211 Iowa 1082 , 234 N. W. 849 ; that the intervener was not entitled to have its claim established as a preferred claim against the receiver of the Citizens Bank of Pleasantville; and ordered and decreed that the intervener’s claim be denied as a preferred claim, and that the act of the receiver in allowing said claim as a general claim be confirmed.

1932We have allowed recovery as a preferred claim where a deposit was wrongful in Leach v. Stockport Savings Bank, 207 Iowa 478 ; Andrew v. Farmers Savings Bank of Goldfield, 207 Iowa 394 ; Andrew v. Winnebago County State Bank, 208 Iowa 392 ; Leach v. Farmers & Merchants Savings Bank, 202 Iowa 881 ; Page County v. Rose, 130 Iowa 296 .

1932We have allowed recovery as a preferred claim where a deposit was wrongful in Leach v. Stockport Savings Bank, 207 Iowa 478 ; Andrew v. Farmers Savings Bank of Goldfield, 207 Iowa 394 ; Andrew v. Winnebago County State Bank, 208 Iowa 392 ; Leach v. Farmers & Merchants Savings Bank, 202 Iowa 881 ; Page County v. Rose, 130 Iowa 296 .

1932We have allowed recovery as a preferred claim where a deposit was wrongful in Leach v. Stockport Savings Bank, 207 Iowa 478 ; Andrew v. Farmers Savings Bank of Goldfield, 207 Iowa 394 ; Andrew v. Winnebago County State Bank, 208 Iowa 392 ; Leach v. Farmers & Merchants Savings Bank, 202 Iowa 881 ; Page County v. Rose, 130 Iowa 296 .

1932We have allowed recovery as a preferred claim where a deposit was wrongful in Leach v. Stockport Savings Bank, 207 Iowa 478 ; Andrew v. Farmers Savings Bank of Goldfield, 207 Iowa 394 ; Andrew v. Winnebago County State Bank, 208 Iowa 392 ; Leach v. Farmers & Merchants Savings Bank, 202 Iowa 881 ; Page County v. Rose, 130 Iowa 296 .

1932Section 9239-cl of the 1931 Code, relied upon by-the appellant, contains the following provisions: “Any draft drawn and issued by any bank or trust company prior to its failure or closing and given in payment of clearings and any money paid in the usual course of business to any bank, or trust company for the purchase of a draft for the bona fide transfer of funds shall be a preferred claim against the assets of. the bank or trust company.” (The italics are ours.) That section, the appellant argues, entitles him to a preference over depositors because the draft in question was purchased by him

1916This court, upon that hearing, said: “Plaintiff asks that her claim be established as a preferred claim, but we think, under the circumstances, we would not be justified in going farther than to- hold that the contract of sale of the stock should be rescinded, and that judgment be entered against the defendant, the old corporation, for $1,000, with six per cent interest.” In a supplemental opinion filed on the 26th day of September, 1913, 177 Iowa 20 , this court further said: “Cause is remanded, with direction to the district court to enter judgment against the defendant corporation for $1,00

1914Harris v. Brink, 100 Iowa, 369 ; Kelsey v. Kelley, 63 Vt. 41 ( 22 Atl. 597 , 13 L.

1905The case of Kells v. Lewis, 91 Iowa, 128 , cited by appellant, is in no wise inconsistent with this holding.

1905In Goodenow v. Foster, 108 Iowa, 508 , the property was also taken under a chattel mortgage, and following the Reynolds Case, the laborers were given a preferred claim, it being alleged and undenied that the debtor’s business had been suspended by the seizure of the threshing machine under the mortgage.

1903In the meantime other preferred claims had been allowed and paid out of the general assets of the bank, and, as the assets after tbe payment of these preferred claims were not sufficient to pay the claims of general creditors, a fifty per cent, assessment on stockholders on account of their double liability was made (see State v. Union Stock Yards State Bank, 103 Iowa, 549 ), the proceeds 'of which, coming into the hands of the receiver from 1895 down to tbe date of UK-trial in the lower court, amounted to about $26,000, of which the receiver at the time of the trial had on hand $5,673.65.

1893The cases of Citizens’ Bank v. Dows, 68 Iowa, 460 , and Crawford v. Nolan, 70 Iowa, 98 , are relied upon by the appellants as supporting their theory of the law.