Hughes v. Lake

Citations

• 63 Miss. 552

Syllabus

<p>1. Attachment. Fraudulent contracting of debt. Insolvent bank receiving deposit. Effect of l 2814, Code of 1880.</p> <p>L., a hanker, having failed in business and made an assignment, il., one of his depositors, sued out an attachment against him on the ground that the debt due the plaintiff was “ fraudulently contracted.” On the trial of the issue joined to test the ground of the attachment the plaintiff adduced evidence tending to show that L. knew at the time he received plaintiff’s deposit that the bank was insolvent. Under $ 2814 of the code, which makes it a felony if any officer, agent, or employee of a bank “ receive any deposit, knowing or having good reason to believe that the establishment is insolvent, without informing the depositor of such condition,” the plaintiff asked an instruction to the effect that if L. was guilty of violating the statute in receiving H.’s deposit, then he fraudulently contracted the debt therefor. The court refused to give the instruction as asked, but modified it so as to charge that such guilt of L., if it existed, might be considered in determining whether the debt was fraudulently contracted. Held, that the action of the court below was correct.</p> <p>2. Same. Guilt in receiving deposit under § 2814, Code of 1880. Fraud in contracting debt under (Í 2415, Code of 1880.</p> <p>The statute above referred to, \\ 2814 of the Code of 1880, was intended for the protection of the public, and guilt under it depends on the existence of the facts recited in it, without regard to the intent or purpose of the person charged with the violation thereof. But to sustain an attachment on the ground that the defendant “ fraudulently contracted the debt ” sued for, it must be shown that in contracting such debt he intended to defraud the plaintiff.</p>