is made that plaintiff’s dealings were with Kittel personally; that Kittel was connected with many other concerns and that, most favorably considered, Kittel was the mere agent of the bank; that the transaction involved was not a bank transaction; that it was a mere brokerage transaction in any event ; that under the National Banking Act the defendant was prohibited from engaging in such transaction, which the plaintiff, as a matter of law, was bound to know; that there is a total failure of evidence to justify the findings of the jury; that plaintiff turned over to Kittel, as representative of the bank, a satisfaction of the Ellsbury mortgage, and that Kittel, as representative, collected the proceeds thereof and used the same in payment of the land company loan; that the evidence conclusively shows that there is no conversion of plaintiff’s security and no tortious act by any agent of the bank while acting within the course of his employment; that, furthermore, there is no evidence to show that the defendant bank had received a dollar of plaintiff's money out of the proceeds of the Ellsbury loan or from the Lucca Bank in connection therewith, or that it made any profit or commission of any kind; that the basis of plaintiff’s claim for fraud and deceit is based upon a personal letter of the president of the defendant bank concerning a transaction in which the defendant bank could not engage and involving at best only a mere brokerage transaction for which the defendant bank was not liable for the personal activities of its president Kittel outside of the scope of his employment ; that, furthermore, the evidence fails to disclose any receipt of a satisfaction or other paper from the plaintiff, or, upon the books of the bank, receipt of any moneys in connection with the Ellsbury or Altalfa Valley Land Company, so as to make the transaction of Kittel with the plaintiff a bank transaction.
Decision.
The facts and contentions of the parties have been set forth somewhat at length in view of the complicated questions involved.
After full consideration of the voluminous record, we are satisfied that the findings of the jury find support in the evidence. The plaintiff did business with the defendant bank before the arrival of R. C. Kittel upon the scene of prominent activities. He was necessarily compelled to do business with the defendant bank after the fall of Mr. Kittel from power. This record undisputably shows that the plaintiff, through a long
