Chapman v. First Nat. Bank of Roseburg

• Decision Date: 31 July 1914
• Citation: 72 Or. 492,143 P. 630
• Parties: CHAPMAN v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF ROSEBURG.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

143 P. 630

72 Or. 492

CHAPMAN v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF ROSEBURG.

Supreme Court of Oregon

July 31, 1914

Department 2.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Douglas County; J. W. Hamilton, Judge.

Action by W. E. Chapman against the First National Bank of Roseburg. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

O. P. Coshow, of Roseburg, for appellant. Carl E Wimberly, of Roseburg, for respondent.

McNARY J.

This is an action to recover a deposit of $600. During the time covered by the transaction defendant was a corporation engaged in banking, having its place of business at Roseburg. Plaintiff avows that between the months of October, 1909, and January, 1911, he deposited with defendant, for his own use benefit, and account, the sum of $782.05, and that during the intervening time, he withdrew from the bank $182.05, leaving a balance of $600, which defendant refuses to pay. Defendant in its answer denies the indebtedness and alleges: "That the plaintiff withdrew from said bank, the total sum of his deposits therein, to wit, $782.05." Plaintiff's reply, in legal effect, consists of a reaffirmation of the matters asserted in his complaint. At the conclusion of the testimony offered by defendant, the trial judge, in response to a motion interposed by counsel for plaintiff, directed the jury to return a verdict in favor of plaintiff for the full amount demanded. Crystallized, the assignments of error present but one grievance; namely, that the trial court committed a legal wrong in allowing plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict. Having the laboring oar defendant offered in evidence a deposition of T. R. Sheridan, president of the bank through whom the transaction occurred. After being asked if plaintiff said anything about the money on deposit with the bank, the witness said:

"He told me that he did not need all the money in the bank, and if I could loan it, naming the amount--I cannot just now remember how much--that he wanted me to do so. Q. What did you do with the money? A. I took it and placed my note in an envelope and addressed it in his name and put it in the letter 'C' in the bank vault, just as I did for others for whom I made loans. Q. Did the plaintiff know that you had loaned his money for him prior to May 1, 1913? A. Yes; for he asked me when we were in the First National Bank Building, and after we removed to the Douglas County National Bank Building he came in and asked me two or three times if I had collected the interest on his money. I told him, 'No,' but I would get it for him."

The witness further deposed that the plaintiff made no objection to the loan, but appeared satisfied when told that the money would draw interest. Defendant's evidence further reveals the fact that the president of the bank drew the money by means of a memorandum check to which he signed plaintiff's name, appending thereunder the letter "T," which is the first initial of his name.

On behalf of defendant, S. A. Sanford was called as a witness, and declares that he was cashier of the bank during the time covered by the controversy, and in answer to the question, "Do you know what was done with the money?" said:

"Yes; it was loaned to Mr. Sheridan. Q. Now you may state whether or not any evidence of that loan was given by Mr. Sheridan. A. The note of Mr. Sheridan for $600 in an envelope. * * * Q. Who had control of that envelope in which that note of $600 was placed? Where was it, in the First National Bank? A. It was in a pigeonhole where we file all of our customers' papers under the letter 'C.' Q. Who had control of it? A. It was placed in the bank."

Mr Sanford further stated that as cashier of the bank, he did not pay the money over to the president on the memorandum check, and that he had no knowledge of the payment of the money until a few months prior to the institution of the action, when plaintiff presented a check drawn against the deposit and demanded payment thereof. As a concluding witness, Mr. Harry Stapleton, testified that he was clerk in the bank at the time of the proceedings in question, and that he talked with plaintiff more than a year after the occurrence, and that plaintiff inquired concerning the return of Mr. Sheridan, and said that "he (Sheridan) had some of his money, and he did not have anything to show for it." On cross-examination the witness said: "Plaintiff did not say that Sheridan had borrowed the money from him." Upon this state of the record, the...