Am. Nat. Bank v. E. W. Adams & Co.

• Decision Date: 22 September 1914
• Docket Number: Case Number: 3789
• Citation: 143 P. 508,1914 OK 425,44 Okla. 129
• Parties: AMERICAN NAT. BANK et al. v. E. W. ADAMS & CO.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1914 OK 425

143 P. 508

44 Okla. 129

AMERICAN NAT. BANK et al. v. E. W. ADAMS & CO.

Case Number: 3789

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: September 22, 1914

Syllabus

¶0 1. BANKS AND BANKING--Cashier--Authority to Bind Bank. A national bank is not bound by the acts of its cashier, when such cashier has acted beyond the scope of his authority as such officer.

2. SAME--Receipt of Deposits--Authority of Cashier. A national bank may receive special deposits, such as notes, stocks, bonds, securities, bills of exchange, etc., the handling of which in their very nature comes within the regular line of banking business, and the acts of the cashier in receiving such deposits are binding on the bank.

3. SAME--Banking Business--What Constitutes--"Special Deposit." Allowing a stock of shoes in which a bank has no interest to be stored in the back end of the bank is not a transaction coming within the general line of banking business, and is not within the general scope and meaning of the term "special deposit."

4. SAME--Bailment--Cashier--Liability on Guaranty. Where a cashier agrees with two contracting parties that a stock of shoes may be stored in the back end of a bank, and guarantees to such parties that same will be delivered to the proper party upon compliance with certain stipulations entered into between the parties, upon his failure to deliver such goods according to such guaranty, the bank will not be bound by the cashier's contract of guaranty, but the cashier may be held personally liable as bailee for a breach of his guaranty.

W. S. Farmer, for plaintiffs in error.

Linebaugh Bros. & Pinson, for defendant in error.

HARRISON, C.

¶1 This action was instituted by E. W. Adams & Co. against the American National Bank and F. E. Adams, the cashier, for possession of a stock of shoes of the alleged value of $ 493.49. E. W. Adams & Co. had at some time previous thereto been in the mercantile business in Kansas. They left Kansas and opened up a store in Oklahoma. Soon thereafter the stock of shoes in question was attached by the Elliot-Kendall Shoe Company, the shoes being of the Elliot-Kendall brand and having been purchased from such company by Adams & Co. When the order of attachment was served, Adams & Co. and the Elliot-Kendall Shoe Company, and their attorneys, entered into a stipulation wherein it was agreed that the stock of shoes should be stored in the back end of the American National Bank, to be turned over to the Elliot-Kendall Shoe Company on or before a certain date, provided such Shoe Company delivered to E. W. Adams & Co. a warranty deed to certain lots or tracts of land situated in Hamilton county, Kan.; but, in the event such deed was not furnished within the time specified, then the stock of shoes should be turned back to E. W. Adams & Co. The bank, through its cashier, F. E. Adams, accepted an indemnity bond from the Elliot-Kendall Shoe Company, and agreed to permit the stock of shoes to be stored in the back end of the bank, and guaranteed that delivery of same should be made to the party entitled thereto according to the terms in the stipulation signed by the Elliot-Kendall Shoe Company and by E. W. Adams & Co. A deed to the land in question was received through the mail by the American National Bank in due time, and the parties and their attorneys notified of the receipt of same, pursuant to which notice E. W. Adams & Co. and the attorney for the Elliot-Kendall Shoe Company appeared at the bank, examined the deed, and held a conference as to what should be done in the premises in reference to the acceptance of the deed by Adams & Co. and the turning over of the stock of shoes to the Elliot-Kendall Company. It is claimed by the bank, and so testified to by the cashier, Adams, and some of the other bank employees, that the deed was turned over to Adams & Co. and was accepted by it and retained possession of by such company. On the other hand, it is claimed by Adams & Co. that such deed was unsatisfactory and not according to the stipulations, being a quitclaim instead of a warranty deed, and was not accepted, but was left in the bank. Pursuant to such conference, however, the stock of shoes was turned over to J. M. Humphreys, attorney for the Elliot-Kendall Shoe Company. Subsequently E. W. Adams & Co., claiming to have rejected the deed on the ground that it was not according to stipulations, and on the ground that they had left same with said bank, or the cashier thereof, demanded return of the stock of shoes. This being refused, suit was brought against the bank and F. E. Adams, the cashier, for possession of the shoes, or the value thereof. The cause was tried, resulting in a verdict and judgment in favor of E. W. Adams & Co. for the return of the stock of shoes, or the value thereof, and from such judgment the bank and F. E. Adams appeal to this court for review. A number of assignments are urged for reversal, the decisive one being that the guaranty that the stock of shoes would be turned over to the proper party according to the stipulation between the parties was signed by the cashier of the bank; that such a contract of guaranty was out of the line of the bank's regular business under its charter, and outside of the line...