Bank of Commerce v. Baird Min. Co.

Citation85 P. 970,13 N.M. 424
PartiesBANK OF COMMERCEv.BAIRD MIN. CO., Limited.
Decision Date02 March 1906
CourtSupreme Court of New Mexico

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Syllabus by the Court.

The managing agent of a mining corporation has no implied power to pledge the credit of his principal by drawing and cashing bills of exchange, and if he does so it must be by reason of some special authorization.

[Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see vol. 36, Cent. Dig. Municipal Corporations, § 1645.]

One who discounts a bill of exchange drawn by the managing agent of a mining corporation in the name of the principal, without inquiring into the authority of the agent, does so at his peril.

[Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see vol. 36, Cent. Dig. Municipal Corporations, § 1645.]

A general finding of facts by the court, where a jury is waived, is sufficient upon which to base a judgment, and the court is not bound to make special findings in the absence of a request therefor.

[Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see vol. 46, Cent. Dig. Trial, § 916.]

Appeal from District Court, Bernalillo County; before Justice Ira A. Abbott.

Action by the Bank of Commerce against the Baird Mining Company. Judgment for the mining company, and the bank appeals. Affirmed.

The Bank of Commerce is a corporation duly organized and doing a general banking business at Albuquerque, N. M. The Baird Mining Company, Limited, is a corporation organized under the laws of the province of Ontario, Dominion of Canada, authorized to do business in this territory and has been operating placer mines at Golden, N. M., where its property is situated. Some time in the year 1900 an account was opened with the Bank of Commerce by a Mr. Woodworth, the manager of the Baird Mining Company in New Mexico, in the name of Woodworth as manager, which account was kept open and deposits made and checks drawn against it in the ordinary course of business for some two years. In the meantime, Mr. Woodworth removed to Denver, the account standing with a small overdraft. On June 2, 1902, Mr. E. B. Ryckman, the secretary-treasurer of the Baird Mining Company, wrote the bank as follows: “Toronto, Canada, May 28th, 1902, Bank of Commerce, Albuquerque, N. M., U. S. A.-Dear Sirs: Enclosed you will please find New York draft for $250, which I shall be glad if you will place to the credit of the Baird Mining Co., Limited, and against which I understand that Mr. W. S. Rishworth, as manager of the company intends to draw. I shall also be obliged to you if you will be good enough to let me have a full statement, both debit and credit, of the account of the company with your bank to the present time. I know that this may mean some little labor on your part, but I shall esteem it a great favor if you will comply with my request. Yours very truly, E. B. Ryckman, Secretary-Treasurer Baird Mining Company, Limited.” The money was deposited to the credit of the company as requested, and a new account opened with the company direct, and against this account Mr. Rishworth drew his checks as manager. Shortly after the receipt of the above letter and the opening of the last-mentioned account, Mr. Rishworth commenced drawing sight drafts in the name of the Baird Mining Company by himself as manager through the Bank of Commerce. The first two or three were taken by the bank for collection and were paid upon presentation to Mr. Ryckman, in Canada; the others (some 10 or more) were credited at once to the company's account at Rishworth's request and sent on by the Bank of Commerce, through its New York correspondent, as its own paper. These drafts were all paid by Mr. Ryckman, upon presentation and demand, except the last three, for $150, $300, and $150, respectively, upon which payment was refused by Mr. Ryckman, whereupon the drafts went to protest, and it is for the money so advanced on these three drafts, with protest fees and interest, that the bank brings this action. There was no other correspondence between the parties as to Rishworth's authority, and there is no evidence that Ryckman or the company knew that the money on any of the drafts had been advanced to Rishworth before the same were collected. The proceeds of the drafts were drawn out by Rishworth on the company's checks, but it is not clear that the money was used for the purposes of the company. The district court found generally for the defendant Baird Mining Company, Limited, and rendered a judgment in its favor against the Bank of Commerce, and it appeals to this court.

A general finding of facts by the court where a jury is waived, is sufficient upon which to base a judgment and the court is not bound to make special findings in the absence of a request therefor.

William B. Childers, for appellant.

Thomas N. Wilkerson, for appellee.

MANN, J.

The only question involved in this case is whether the Baird Mining Company, Limited, is liable for the acts of Rishworth in drawing the three sight drafts in question and authorizing the bank to credit the same to the company's account, or in other words whether Rishworth had the authority, or the seeming authority from the acts and conduct of the company, to pledge its credit to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Grant County State Bank v. Northwestern Land Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • January 4, 1915
    ......604, 19 L.Ed. 1008; Ford v. Hill, 92 Wis. 188,. 53 Am. St. Rep. 905, 66 N.W. 115; G. V. B. Min. Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 36 C. C. A. 633, 95 F. 33; Martin. v. Webb, 110 U.S. 7, 28 L.Ed. 49, ...First Nat. Bank, 39 Mich. 644, 1 Mor. Min. Rep. 453; Bank of Commerce v. Baird Min. Co. 13 N. M. 424, 85 P. 970; Dan. Neg. Inst. §§ 289, et seq.; Bank of Deer ......
  • Grant Cnty. State Bank v. Nw. Land Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • January 4, 1915
    ......1017, 45 Pac. 252;Sanford Cattle Co. v. Williams, 18 Colo. App. 378, 71 Pac. 889;Bank of Commerce v. Baird Co., 13 N. M. 424, 85 Pac. 970;Helena Nat. Bank v. Telegraph Co., 20 Mont. 379, 51 Pac. ......
  • Burguete v. G. W. Bond & Bro. Mercantile Co.(two Cases).Howell v. Same.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • December 20, 1938
    ...to the authority of Governor Dillon, which was specific and limited according to the trial court's finding. In Bank of Commerce v. Baird Mining Co., 13 N.M. 424, 85 P. 970, the Territorial Supreme Court, in holding that the managing agent of a mining company had no general powers to make dr......
  • Alexander Hamilton Inst. v. Smith.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • June 6, 1930
    ...This is unavailing because a trial court is not required to make specific findings of fact unless requested so to do. Bank v. Mining Company, 13 N. M. 424, 85 P. 970; Radcliffe v. Chaves, 15 N. M. 258, 110 P. 699; Springer Ditch Co. v. Wright et al., 31 N. M. 457, 247 P. 270. Appellant comp......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT