Avgerinion v. First Guar. Bank
| Decision Date | 19 January 1927 |
| Docket Number | 20045. |
| Citation | 142 Wash. 73,252 P. 535 |
| Parties | AVGERINION v. FIRST GUARANTY BANK. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Kuykendall, Judge.
Action by E. H. Avgerinion against the First Guaranty Bank. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
W. N Beal, of Centralia, for appellant.
Long & Schweppe, of Seattle, for respondent.
In this action the respondent, Avgerinion, recovered against the appellant, First Guaranty Bank, a banking concern doing business at Chehalis, in this state, in the sum of $2,000 and interest, as for a breach of contract.
The facts giving rise to the controversy are, in substance these: The respondent is of Greek nationality, and a coal miner by occupation. On August 19, 1919, he had on deposit with the appellant bank a sum of money approximating $2,000, and desired to have a sum equivalent to that amount in Greek drachmas transferred to his account with the National Bank of Greece, Lamia brach. Being unable to speak the English language with any fluency, he took with him to the bank a countryman as an interpreter, and through the interpreter made known to the bank his wishes. The bank agreed to make the transfer, and the respondent turned over to the bank from his deposit and from cash in his possession the sum of $2,000, plus a commission of $20, for which the bank issued to him a draft or order, the precise nature of which is not shown in the present record, telling him to forward the instrument to the Greek bank, with instructions directing the bank to deposit the amount of the instrument to his credit. The appellant took the instrument, and forwarded it to the Greek bank, with a letter of instructions, in accordance with the directions given him by the appellant bank. Some two or three months later the instrument was returned to him by the Greek bank with the information that it had no funds to his credit. He thereupon surrendered the instrument to the appellant bank, and received another in the following form:
Similar instructions were given him with respect to this instrument that were given him with respect to the former one, and the respondent caused it to be forwarded to the Greek bank with instructions to place the amount thereof to his credit. Some two years later, this instrument was also returned to him with the information that the bank had no funds out of which to make the credit. The instrument, when returned to the respondent, bore on its back in the Greek language a certain canceled indorsement, which a witness at the trial interpreted to mean in English:
The instrument also bore certain other indorsements in red ink, which the witness interpreted to mean in English:
On the face of the instrument is a stamp purporting to be that of the National Bank of Greece.
The appellant attempted to forward the credit to the Greek bank, through the agency of the Cunard Steamship Company, Limited. There is, however, in the record a letter from the company stating that the Greek bank was not on their list of paying agencies, and, while they had made every effort to do so, they had not succeeded in having the credit forwarded to the bank. The record shows further that the local bank did not, through any other agency, or of itself, forward to the Greek bank the equivalent in drachmas of the money deposited with it.
On the return to him of the second of the instruments, the respondent demanded of the appellant the money he had deposited with it for the purchase of the credit. This the bank refused, offering, however, to return to him the equivalent in Greek drachmas at the then current rate of exchange. But this the respondent refused to accept, possibly because Greek drachmas had fallen in value between the dates of the transaction from a substantial sum to a sum but little more than nominal. This action thereupon followed, with the result we have before indicated.
The appellant first complains that the trial court erred in the admission of evidence. The proofs tending to show that the credit had not been forwarded to the Greek bank through the agency the appellant selected for that purpose appear in a letter from that agency. It is argued that this was inadmissible because incompetent to prove the fact; that the only competent evidence would be that of some officer of the company who knew the fact testifying directly to the fact. But we are not persuaded that the contention is tenable. It is a general rule that, where a principal intrusts the management of his business to an agent, the admissions of the agent with reference to the business is the admission of the principal. Tacoma & Eastern Lumber Co. v. Field & Co., 100 Wash. 79, 170 P. 360.
But we think the proofs were sufficient to sustain the judgment without the evidence above mentioned. When the respondent showed that, following the directions of the appellant, he forwarded the instrument by mail to the Greek bank, and further showed that the Greek bank refused to give him the credit in drachmas called for in the instrument, and returned the instrument to him, he proved all that he was required to prove to make a prima facie case.
But the appellant says that the proofs by which the respondent sought to establish the fact that he had forwarded the instrument in accordance with the appellant's directions were not competent to establish the fact. The evidence in this respect is the testimony of the person who performed the service for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Performance Contracting, Inc. v. State
... ... motion, and proposed order "via first class mail" ... to the board, the department, the department's ... a presumption that the mail was received. Avgerinion v ... First Guar. Bank, 142 Wash. 73, 78, 252 P. 535 (1927) ... ...
-
Performance Contracting, Inc. v. State
...Wash. 453, 455, 38 P.2d 240 (1934). Proof of mailing gives rise to a presumption that the mail was received. Avgerinion v. First Guar. Bank, 142 Wash. 73, 78, 252 P. 535 (1927). The department unpersuasively argues that the presumption does not apply in this case. It points to the fact that......
-
The Collection Group, LLC v. Cook, 32020-1-III
... ... Mr. Cook ... claimed that he first learned of this action when "some ... papers seeking supplemental ... 991, ... 995, 497 P.2d 617 (1972) (citing Avgerinion v. First ... Guar. Bank, 142 Wash. 73, 78, 252 P. 535 (1927)) (once ... ...
-
Collection Grp., LLC v. Cook
...of abode for Mr. Cook. Cf. Automat Co. v. Yakima County, 6 Wn. App. 991, 995, 497 P.2d 617 (1972) (citing Avgerinion v. First Guar. Bank, 142 Wash. 73, 78, 252 P. 535 (1927)) (once there is proof of mailing, it is presumed that the mails proceed in due course and that the letter is received......