Farmers' Bank of Dearborn v. Fudge
Decision Date | 07 November 1904 |
Citation | 109 Mo. App. 186,82 S.W. 1112 |
Parties | FARMERS' BANK OF DEARBORN v. FUDGE. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
6. In an action by a bank to recover on drafts drawn on defendant and paid to the drawer by the bank, it appeared that a part of the money remained on deposit to the credit of the drawer, who was defendant's agent. Held, that the bank, having failed to credit such deposit on the drafts, could recover from defendant the full amount thereof.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; W. B. Teasdale, Judge.
Action by the Farmers' Bank of Dearborn against Aboudah J. Fudge. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Hamner & Hamner, for appellant. Elijah Robinson and Harris Robinson, for respondent.
The plaintiff sues as a corporation under the laws of Missouri, doing a banking business in the county of Platt. The petition is in four counts, but at the trial plaintiff dismissed as to the third and fourth, and the cause was tried on the first and second, on which latter the finding and judgment were for the plaintiff, and defendant appealed.
According to plaintiff's evidence, in April, 1900, one R. L. Franse appeared at plaintiff's bank at Dearborn and informed the cashier thereof that he wanted the bank to pay drafts which he might at different times draw on defendant to pay for poultry and produce to be shipped to defendant. Means, the cashier of the bank, thereupon called up defendant by telephone and asked him if he had a man at Dearborn to buy poultry and produce for him, and defendant answered that he had. Then Means asked the name of the man, and informed defendant that Franse wanted to draw drafts on him from time to time, and asked if he would pay the drafts, to which defendant replied that he would. Then Means asked defendant how much he should let Franse draw, to which he answered: "Oh, well, let him draw on me from time to time as he buys, and whatever he draws on me will be all right." The bank cashed drafts drawn on defendant by said Franse at different times up to about the 1st of January, 1902. On January 3, 1902, it cashed one such draft for $200, and on the 6th of said month another for the sum of $145.38, both of which were protested, the defendant having refused to pay them. The evidence was somewhat conflicting as to proof of agency.
The first count of the petition is as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial