Cent. Nat'l Bank v. LeVin

• Decision Date: 18 February 1879
• Citation: 6 Mo.App. 543
• Parties: CENTRAL NATIONAL BANK, Appellant, v. HEYMAN LEVIN, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

6 Mo.App. 543

CENTRAL NATIONAL BANK, Appellant,

v.HEYMAN LEVIN, Respondent.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Feb. 18, 1879.

1. The knowledge possessed by a bank-president or acquired by him in connection with the discount of a note is the knowledge of the bank, and his accidental absence at a particular time is no legal excuse for the failure of the bank to act upon such knowledge.

2. Facts reviewed showing a want of due diligence in notifying an indorser of dishonor of a note.

APPEAL from St. Louis Circuit Court.

Affirmed.

W. L. SCOTT and D. W. WEAR, for appellant.

HAYDEN, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a suit against the defendant as indorser upon a promissory note made by one Crafton to the defendant's order. The note was indorsed by the defendant, and then, for collection, by the cashier of the plaintiff to the cashier of a bank at St. Louis. At the time of maturity the defendant lived at St. Louis, and this fact was known to the notary who protested the note. The question is whether the defendant was duly notified of the dishonor of the note; and in regard to this facts were found by the court below as follows:--

“The note in controversy was presented for payment on the day of maturity, to wit, June 23, 1876, and payment demanded, and was duly protested, and notices thereof in due form for the defendant and plaintiff were deposited in the post-office at St. Louis, Mo., postage prepaid, in one envelop, addressed to the plaintiff at Boonville, Mo. Plaintiff received said notices at Boonville, on the 26th of June, 1876, and on that day enclosed the notice for defendant in an envelop addressed to him at St. Louis, Mo., and enclosed said envelop in another envelop addressed to Joseph L. Stephens, St. Louis, Mo., and deposited it in the post-office at Boonville, Mo., with instructions to Joseph L. Stephens to deliver the enclosed notice to defendant.

Plaintiff's cashier, who mailed the notice for Levin to J. L. Stephens, did not know Levin's place of residence at the time, and after making inquiries at Boonville was unable to ascertain his residence; he therefore sent the notice as last stated, to J. L. Stephens. Joseph L. Stephens deposited the notice enclosed to him and addressed to the defendant in the mail-box at the Lindell Hotel in St. Louis, Mo., and the letter was in the post-office at about 11 A. M., June 28, 1876, and defendant received the same the following day, June 29, 1876, at his office in St. Louis, Mo., through the mail. The notice was deposited at the Lindell Hotel, in the mail-box, postage prepaid, in the same condition as when it left Boonville, addressed simply, ‘Heyman Levin, St. Louis, Mo.’ During the year 1876, letters mailed at Boonville, Mo., and addressed to St. Louis, Mo., in the...