Barnes v. People's Bank & Trust Co.

• Decision Date: 19 October 1927
• Docket Number: 106.
• Citation: 139 S.E. 689,194 N.C. 371
• Parties: BARNES v. PEOPLE'S BANK & TRUST CO.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

139 S.E. 689

194 N.C. 371

BARNES v. PEOPLE'S BANK & TRUST CO.

No. 106.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

October 19, 1927

Appeal from Superior Court, Johnston County; Harris, Judge.

Action by J. D. Barnes against the People's Bank & Trust Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

Generally agent for collection may not receive payment except in money.

Mrs Barnes, the plaintiff, resides in Selma, and the defendant is engaged there in the business of banking. In her complaint she alleged that on April 11, 1925, she deposited with the defendant a cashier's check issued to her by the First National Bank of Selma for $4,800, and that the defendant gave her a receipt or deposit slip for this sum; that on May 5, 1925, she drew a check for this amount on the defendant in favor of O. F. Dickinson, who on the same day presented it to the defendant by whom payment was refused; and that the check was then returned to her. She alleged that the defendant presented the cashier's check to the First National Bank of Selma and accepted in payment of this and other checks two drafts drawn on other banks by the First National Bank of Selma, aggregating $13,349.15, which on or about April 14 1925, were returned to the defendant unpaid; that the defendant without authority from her failed to collect money on the cashier's check, negligently failed to exercise due diligence in making the collection, and that the defendant by reason of its default was indebted to her in the sum of $4,800, with interest.

In its answer the defendant denied some of the material allegations and alleged that it accepted the cashier's check for collection only; that it accepted from the First National Bank of Selma two checks or drafts on other banks knowing it had not then in its banking house money enough to pay either of said checks; that the acceptance of such checks or drafts was the customary procedure which had been followed by both banks for many years in clearing their collections and was generally observed; that when she received the cashier's check the plaintiff knew the First National Bank could not pay her in cash and that the defendant received the check only for the purpose of collecting it in the method generally employed in these circumstances.

The trial judge gave judgment on the pleadings for the plaintiff's recovery of $4,800 less $468.85, with which her account had been credited, with interest and costs.

The defendant excepted and appealed.

Ed. Ward and Abell & Shepard, all of Smithfield, for appellant.

O. P. Dickinson, Bryce Little, and Oliver G. Rand, all of Wilson, for appellee.

ADAMS J.

The plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings was in the nature of a demurrer to the answer, admitting the truth of the allegations therein but denying their legal sufficiency to constitute a defense, For this reason the answer should be liberally construed and every intendment should be taken against the plaintiff; or, conversely, to warrant the judgment the allegations which are essential as a basis for it should be admitted. Pridgen v. Pridgen, 190 N.C. 102, 129 S.E. 419; Churchwell v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 181 N.C. 21, 105 S.E. 889; Alston v. Hill, 165 N.C. 255, 81 S.E. 291.

On April 11, 1925, the defendant received from the plaintiff a cashier's check for $4,800 which had been given her by the First National Bank of Selma, and on the same day presented to the issuing bank this check and others held against it by the plaintiff's children, and accepted from it in substitution two drafts, one of which, covering the plaintiff's check, was drawn on the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Va., for $12,847.15 and was afterwards returned unpaid. This was admitted.

It may be stated as a general rule that an...