City of Brunswick v. People's Savings Bank

• Decision Date: 27 November 1916
• Docket Number: No. 12223.,12223.
• Parties: CITY OF BRUNSWICK v. PEOPLE'S SAVINGS BANK.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

190 S.W. 60

194 Mo. App. 360

CITY OF BRUNSWICK v. PEOPLE'S SAVINGS BANK.

No. 12223.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

November 27, 1916.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Livingston County; Arch B. Davis, Judge.

Action by the City of Brunswick against the People's Savings Bank. Defendant filed an answer in the nature of an interpleader, to which plaintiff demurred, which demurrer the trial court overruled, and rendered judgment requiring John F. Meek to interplead, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

C. W. Bowen, of Brunswick, and L. A. Chapman, of Chillicothe, for appellant. Paul D. Kitt, of Chillicothe, for respondent.

ELLISON, P. J.

This is an action on a certified bank check, and defendant's answer was in the nature of an interpleader.

Plaintiff city was about to let a paving contract, and one John F. Meek was a prospective bidder for the work. Under the regulations of the city it was necessary that a bidder should pay $500, or deposit a certified check for that sum as an assurance of his good faith in bidding and his intention to do the work, if the contract should be awarded to him. Meek thereupon drew his check on defendant bank in favor of plaintiff for $500 and had the bank certify it for him, and the bank charged that amount of money off his account, placing it on the certified check account. Meek then delivered the check to the plaintiff city, and was afterwards the successful bidder for the paving.

But it appears the preliminary proceedings taken by the city for the paving appeared to Meek and his attorney to be so irregular and illegal that Meek refused the work and notified defendant bank not to pay the check; that if it did so he would institute suit for the money. Some time afterwards plaintiff demanded payment of the check of the defendant bank, and, being refused, instituted this action. As above stated, defendant's answer was in the nature of a bill of interpleader, wherein, after setting up facts substantially as here stated and stating its willingness to pay to the party entitled, it asked that Meek be required to interplead and the court give judgment to the party legally entitled to the money.

Plaintiff demurred to the answer, and the trial court overruled it; whereupon plaintiff refused to make further plea, and judgment was entered requiring Meek to interplead and plaintiff appealed, and as ground therefor says that the bill of interpleader shows on its face an absolute indebtedness to plaintiff, and that no facts are disclosed therein showing any legal claim against the defendant bank by Meek.

When a bank at the request of the drawer of a check certifies it before delivery to the payee, and it is then delivered, the certification does not discharge the drawer if the check is not paid on due presentment. The certification simply vouches for the genuineness of the check and that it will be paid on presentment, and merely adds to its easy negotiation by adding the promise of the bank. Born v. Bank, 123 Ind. 78, 24 N. E. 173, 7 L. R. A. 442, 18 Am. St. Rep. 312; Oyster & Fish Co. v. Bank, 51 Ohio St. 106, 36 N. E. 833; Minot v. Russ, 156 Mass. 458, 31 N. E. 489, 16 L. R. A. 510, 32 Am. St. Rep. 472; Blake v. Hamilton Dime Sav. Bk. Co., 79 Ohio St. 189, 87 N. E. 73, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 290, 128 Am. St. Rep. 691 and 696, 16 Ann. Cas. 210.

But if the holder receive an uncertified check, and instead of drawing the money has it certified, he discharges the drawer, for he...