Thorn & Maginnis v. Wallace

Citations

• 113 Miss. 649
• 74 So. 610

Syllabus

<p>1. Gaming. Embezzled funds. Recovery by bank,.</p> <p>There is no statute in this state giving a bank the right to sue for and recover losses sustained by its cashier in gambling on “futures.”</p> <p>2. Gaming. Recovery of funds. Sufficiency of petition.</p> <p>In a suit by the receiver of a bank against a broker, for losses sustained by its cashier in gambling on “futures,” which losses were paid to the broker, the bill must expressly charge that the money was received by the broker with knowledge that it was stolen. ,</p> <p>3. Same.</p> <p>In such case the bill of complainant should not be bottomed upon mere suspicion or circumstances that would create a suspicion, there should be clear and positive averments of knowledge and bad faith; notice by implication is not sufficient; money passes by delivering and any one trading with such cashier had the right to accept his money without an inquiry as to whether it was borrowed or stolen.</p>