Am. Express Co. v. Anadarko Bank & Trust Co.
| Decision Date | 13 April 1937 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 25321 |
| Citation | 67 P.2d 55,1937 OK 244,179 Okla. 606 |
| Parties | AMERICAN EXPRESS CO. v. ANADARKO BANK & TRUST CO. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. BILLS AND NOTES - That Negotiable Instrument Was Stolen Prior to Delivery no Defense to Claim of Bona Fide Holder.
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. SAME - Travelers' Cheques Held not Incomplete Instruments Because of Blank Spaces to Be Filled by User.
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.)
3. SAME - Instruments Designed to Take Place of Money Subject to Same Rules and Burdens.
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 brought by American Express Company against the Anadarko Bank & Trust Company. Judgment for defendant on its claim of offset, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Robert E. Owens (W.F. Wilson and W.F. Wilson, Jr., of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
Pruett & Wamsley and Melton & Melton, for defendant in error.
¶1 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 cheque 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:
¶2 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, and that they were then negotiated to the defendant. It is conceded that the defendant was an innocent purchaser of said cheques for full value and in due course of business. The plaintiff contends, however, that it is not liable on said cheques to the defendant for the reason that the cheques as delivered to the State Bank of Gorham were incomplete instruments within the Negotiable Instruments Law, and that there was never any delivery of said instruments within...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Erlanger v. Berkemeyer, 11656.
...v. Marsh, 90 Misc. 307, 153 N.Y.S. 96; Perlmutter v. R. & K. Leather Goods Co., Sup., 54 N.Y.S.2d 539; American Express Co. v. Anadarko, etc., 179 Okl. 606, 67 P.2d 55, 110 A.L.R. 972; Shipley v. Carroll, 45 Ill. 285; Clarke v. Johnson, 54 Ill. 296; Rainier v. LaRue, 83 Ind.App. 28, 147 N.E......
-
Stone & Webster Engineer. Corp. v. Hamilton Nat. Bank
...supra; Murray v. Wagner, 2 Cir., 277 F. 32; Pridgen v. Baugh & Sons Co., 4 Cir., 30 F.2d 353; American Express Co. v. Anadarko Bank & Trust Co., 179 Okl. 606, 67 P.2d 55, 110 A.L.R. 972; Annotation 1 A.L.R. It is also well settled that a transfer of a negotiable instrument in payment of, or......
-
Plitt v. Greenberg
...83 F.2d 134 (10th Cir. 1936); Evangeline Iron Works v. Lyons, 233 La. 307, 96 So.2d 578 (1957); American Express Co. v. Anadarko Bank & Trust Co., 179 Okl. 606, 67 P.2d 55, 110 A.L.R. 972 (1937). In order to make out a case of unjust enrichment, the burden rested upon Plitt to prove that th......
-
American Exp. Co. v. Rona Travel Service, Inc.
...the face of the instrument. Judicial notice has been taken of such representations. See American Express Company v. Anadarko Bank & Trust Co., 179 Okl. 606, 67 P.2d 55, 110 A.L.R. 972 (Sup.Ct.1937). It contends that an obligor may by contract or other representation increase his liabilities......