American Express Co. v. Anadarko Bank & Trust Co. of Anadarko

• Decision Date: 13 April 1937
• Docket Number: 25321.
• Parties: AMERICAN EXPRESS CO. v. ANADARKO BANK & TRUST CO. OF ANADARKO.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

67 P.2d 55

179 Okla. 606, 1937 OK 244

AMERICAN EXPRESS CO. v. ANADARKO BANK & TRUST CO. OF ANADARKO.

No. 25321.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

April 13, 1937

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The fact that a completed negotiable instrument was stolen prior to its delivery constitutes no defense to the claim of a bona fide holder for value.

2. Instruments denominated travelers cheques, which have blank spaces therein to be filled by the user of such instruments but which require no further act on the part of the maker or issuing agent beyond the act of delivery, are not incomplete instruments within the meaning of Negotiable Instruments Law. Section 11314, O.S.1931 (48 Okl.St.Ann. § 35).

3. Instruments designed and intended to circulate and take the place of money are governed by the same rules and subject to the same burdens as money would be under the same circumstances.

Appeal from District Court, Caddo County; Will Linn, Judge.

Action in debt by the American Express Company against the Anadarko Bank & Trust Company of Anadarko, Oklahoma. Judgment in favor of defendant on its claim of offset, and plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Robert E. Owens, of Duncan (W. F. Wilson and W. F. Wilson, Jr., both of Oklahoma City, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

Pruett & Wamsley, of Anadarko, and Melton & Melton, of Chickasha for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Caddo county. The parties occupy the same positions in this court as they did in the trial court and will be referred to as plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff in its petition alleged in substance that it had delivered certain travelers cheques to the defendant in trust for the purpose of sale and remittance; that the defendant had sold certain of said cheques and had failed to remit in payment therefor. Wherefore plaintiff prayed judgment for the amount due on said sale. The defendant in its answer admitted the trust relation and the sale of the cheques as claimed by the plaintiff but averred that it had subsequently cashed other travelers cheques of the plaintiff which had been presented to the defendant in due course of business and that plaintiff had refused to honor said cheques and defendant thereupon tendered said cheques together with the sum of $24.90, the difference between the amount of the cheques cashed by it and the amount claimed by the plaintiff, in full payment of plaintiff's claim. Reply of plaintiff alleged that the tendered cheques had been stolen from one of its agents and were incomplete instruments when the asportation took place and that consequently the plaintiff was not liable thereon. The defendant thereupon pleaded that it was a bona fide holder in due course and for full value of said cheques, and that the plaintiff was estopped to deny their validity. The plaintiff by further reply denied all material allegations of new matter set up in the pleadings of the defendant. The cause was tried, upon the issues thus framed, to the court without a jury and resulted in a judgment in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appeals from the judgment thus rendered and the order overruling its motion for new trial.

The essential facts are not in serious dispute. The plaintiff does a world-wide business in certain instruments which they denominate travelers cheques. These instruments are similar in size and shape to the national currency and are designed to take the place of currency and to pass current as money. In order to promote and facilitate such business, the plaintiff maintains and operates offices and agencies in principal cities and towns throughout the civilized world. It furnishes such offices and agencies with supplies of said travelers cheques; these vary only in the denomination and the identifying numbers placed thereon but are of the same general pattern and form, and are ordinarily in the following language:

"U S. Dollar Travelers Cheque When countersigned below with this signature --------- NO. 000 ---------- 67 P.2d 55 ---------- 000 cipher, cipher, cipher cipher, cipher cipher ____________ _____ _____ Before cashing write here city and date. AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY. Affiliated with the Chase National Bank of the City of New York, At its paying agencies. Pay this cheque from our balance to the order of --------------------------------------------- $10.00 In United States: Ten Dollars. In all other countries at current buying rate for bankers' cheques on New York. Geo. Weston, Treasurer. Countersign here in presence of person cashing __________________ This cheque is redeemable only at the company's offices and bankers in United States.

These cheques are engraved and lithographed in large quantities and sent out to the respective offices and agencies in the above form with directions to the office or agent to guard and protect the same as they would other bearer securities. During the year 1931, the plaintiff furnished its agent, Gorham State Bank at Gorham, Kan., with a number of travelers cheques in substantially the form above set forth. This bank was held up and robbed on October 8, 1931. The robbers took everything in the safe, including all the travelers cheques therein which belonged to the plaintiff. On December 31, 1931, the defendant cashed for E. A. Dunn, one of its customers, certain travelers cheques which bore the signature of Roy Bison in the space designated for that purpose in the upper left-hand corner of each instrument and the countersignature of the same party in the lower left hand corner of each instrument. It developed that these cheques were a part of those which the plaintiff had previously delivered to the State Bank of Gorham and the evidence supports the contention of the plaintiff that they were stolen from said bank and that the name, "Roy Bison," was written in the spaces provided for signatures and countersignatures...