Bank claim in Louisiana

2018Corp. v. Corbello , 74 So.2d 341 , 344 (La.Ct.App. 1st Cir.1954) (allowing insurer to recover payments it made to its insured for costs related to an accident that occurred after the expiration of the policy); see also Pioneer Bank & Trust Co. v. Dean's Copy Prods., Inc. , 441 So.2d 1234 , 1236-37 (La.Ct.App. 2d Cir.1983) (holding that a bank's negligence in mistakenly paying a judgment creditor who had no account with the bank did not bar the bank's claim for reimbursement of the amount of debt paid).

2017We find this result mitigates against applying this preclusion doctrine, and exemplifies why our law states that lis pendens is stricti juris and “any doubt concerning the application of lis pendens must be resolved against its application.” Robbins v. Delta Wire Rope, Inc., 15-1757, p. 7 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/3/16), 196 So.3d 700, 705 .

2015Thereafter, BFH filed its opposition to the Bank’s exception of prescription alleging that its claims for conversion were not prescribed because Carmen Baloney was not a “responsible employee” so, under LaCombe v. Bank One Corp., 06-1374 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/7/07) , 953 So.2d 161 , prescription was suspended under the theory of contra non valentum.

2015Id. at 737 .

2010Bank of New York v. Parnell, 09-439, p. 11 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/26/10), 32 So.3d 877, 885 .

2007The Bank argues that the trial court erred and that this court should follow its ruling in Metro Electric & Maintenance, Inc. v. Bank One, Corp., 05-1045 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/1/06) , 924 So.2d 446 , and sustain the Bank's exception.

2007The Bank argues that the trial court erred and that this court should follow its ruling in Metro Electric & Maintenance, Inc. v. Bank One, Corp., 05-1045 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/1/06) , 924 So.2d 446 , and sustain the Bank's exception.

1995On the Bank's application, this court granted certiorari. 94-3049 (La. 2/9/95), 649 So.2d 413 .

1987Schweibish v. Pontchartrain State Bank, 389 So.2d 731 (La.App. 4th Cir.1980), writ denied, 396 So.2d 885 (La.1980) From these record facts, we question the bank's honesty in fact when it had actual knowledge that the amount owed was very much in doubt.

1987Schweibish v. Pontchartrain State Bank, 389 So.2d 731 (La.App. 4th Cir.1980), writ denied, 396 So.2d 885 (La.1980) From these record facts, we question the bank's honesty in fact when it had actual knowledge that the amount owed was very much in doubt.

1968Credit Corporation v. Alker, 239 La. 1057 , 121 So.2d 78 ; White System of New Orleans v. Hall, 219 La. 440 , 53 So.2d 227 .” As to the fourth factor relied on by defendant, i. e., previous sales of defective merchandise sufficient to put the bank on inquiry, the evidence does not support such a defense.

1968Credit Corporation v. Alker, 239 La. 1057 , 121 So.2d 78 ; White System of New Orleans v. Hall, 219 La. 440 , 53 So.2d 227 .” As to the fourth factor relied on by defendant, i. e., previous sales of defective merchandise sufficient to put the bank on inquiry, the evidence does not support such a defense.

1968Credit Corporation v. Alker, 239 La. 1057 , 121 So.2d 78 ; White System of New Orleans v. Hall, 219 La. 440 , 53 So.2d 227 .” As to the fourth factor relied on by defendant, i. e., previous sales of defective merchandise sufficient to put the bank on inquiry, the evidence does not support such a defense.

1968Credit Corporation v. Alker, 239 La. 1057 , 121 So.2d 78 ; White System of New Orleans v. Hall, 219 La. 440 , 53 So.2d 227 .” As to the fourth factor relied on by defendant, i. e., previous sales of defective merchandise sufficient to put the bank on inquiry, the evidence does not support such a defense.

1964In Jackson v. First National Bank of El Centro, 80 Cal.App. 733 , 252 P. 743 , the court appropriately observed: "No authority has been cited by appellant which would indicate a rule that would prevent a bank situated as to facts as was the defendant herein from taking security for a debt owing to it from a person against whom the bank also holds a claim for collection.

1964In Jackson v. First National Bank of El Centro, 80 Cal.App. 733 , 252 P. 743 , the court appropriately observed: "No authority has been cited by appellant which would indicate a rule that would prevent a bank situated as to facts as was the defendant herein from taking security for a debt owing to it from a person against whom the bank also holds a claim for collection.

1940On the other hand, counsel for the Whitney Bank cite and rely on the following three cases as holding that where the third possessor of property pays a mortgage on the property in order to protect the property from sale, the third possessor becomes legally subrogated to the rights and privileges of the mortgagee to whom the payment was made; viz, Duchamp v. Dantilly, 9 La.Ann. 247 ; Walmsley et al. v. Theus et al., 107 La. 417 , 31 So. 869 ; Dennis v. Graham et al., 159 La. 24 , 105 So. 87 .

1940On the other hand, counsel for the Whitney Bank cite and rely on the following three cases as holding that where the third possessor of property pays a mortgage on the property in order to protect the property from sale, the third possessor becomes legally subrogated to the rights and privileges of the mortgagee to whom the payment was made; viz, Duchamp v. Dantilly, 9 La.Ann. 247 ; Walmsley et al. v. Theus et al., 107 La. 417 , 31 So. 869 ; Dennis v. Graham et al., 159 La. 24 , 105 So. 87 .

1940On the other hand, counsel for the Whitney Bank cite and rely on the following three cases as holding that where the third possessor of property pays a mortgage on the property in order to protect the property from sale, the third possessor becomes legally subrogated to the rights and privileges of the mortgagee to whom the payment was made; viz, Duchamp v. Dantilly, 9 La.Ann. 247 ; Walmsley et al. v. Theus et al., 107 La. 417 , 31 So. 869 ; Dennis v. Graham et al., 159 La. 24 , 105 So. 87 .

1940On the other hand, counsel for the Whitney Bank cite and rely on the following three cases as holding that where the third possessor of property pays a mortgage on the property in order to protect the property from sale, the third possessor becomes legally subrogated to the rights and privileges of the mortgagee to whom the payment was made; viz, Duchamp v. Dantilly, 9 La.Ann. 247 ; Walmsley et al. v. Theus et al., 107 La. 417 , 31 So. 869 ; Dennis v. Graham et al., 159 La. 24 , 105 So. 87 .

1934The very purpose of the act of 1926 is to protect one whose check or draft is collected by a bank as agent, when the proceeds so collected are mingled with the money of the bank in violation of instructions to remit or deliver the proceeds, and when the proceeds, therefore, cannot be identified as the property of the owner of the check or draft. *Page 342 The statute was enacted at the time when the case of Sabine Canal Co. v. Crowley Trust Savings Bank, 164 La. 33 , 113 So. 754 , was pending in the district court; and the language of the two sections of the statute applies so precisely and pe

1934The very purpose of the act of 1926 is to protect one whose check or draft is collected by a bank as agent, when the proceeds so collected are mingled with the money of the bank in violation of instructions to remit or deliver the proceeds, and when the proceeds, therefore, cannot be identified as the property of the owner of the check or draft. *Page 342 The statute was enacted at the time when the case of Sabine Canal Co. v. Crowley Trust Savings Bank, 164 La. 33 , 113 So. 754 , was pending in the district court; and the language of the two sections of the statute applies so precisely and pe

1924A check dated New York, June 1st, transmitted to Kansas and arriving there on June 8th is not overdue to such an extent as to put a purchaser on inquiry. 180 N. Y. 346 .

1901Citizens Bank, 167 U. S. 371 , and the effect of that decision of the Supreme Court of the United States is to maintain and carry the exemption into the extended period of the Bank’s charter.