Farmers' & Traders' Nat. Bank v. Greene

• Decision Date: 25 May 1896
• Docket Number: 361.
• Citation: 74 F. 439
• Parties: FARMERS' & TRADERS' NAT. BANK OF COVINGTON, KY., v. GREENE et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

74 F. 439

FARMERS' & TRADERS' NAT. BANK OF COVINGTON, KY., v. GREENE et al.

No. 361.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 25, 1896

This was a suit brought by the defendants in error against the Farmers' & Traders' National Bank of Covington, the plaintiff in error, to recover damages for the alleged negligence of the bank in forwarding and presenting for payment three drafts made by the plaintiff below upon the New Jersey Sheep & Wool Company, a corporation organized under the laws of New Jersey, and doing business at Jersey City, in that state. The particulars of the case are these: The plaintiffs below, Thomas M. Greene and Talton Embrey, as partners doing business under the firm name of Greene &amp Embrey, had been for some time engaged in the business of buying, selling, and shipping live stock from Cincinnati Ohio, and other places, to parties in the Eastern states and, among others, to the New Jersey Sheep & Wool Company. Upon the occasion out of which the present controversy has arisen, Greene & Embrey had sold and shipped by rail to the said New Jersey Sheep & Wool Company, at Jersey City, several car loads of live-stock, and drew three drafts upon that company for the price of the stock thus shipped. The first of these drafts was made and dated on June 30, 1893, for the sum of $3,993.72, payable on demand, without grace, which draft they deposited with the Farmers' & Traders' National Bank, on the day of its date, for collection. On July 1 1893, they drew a like draft on the same company for the sum of $4,097.69, and deposited it with the said bank for collection. And on the 3d of the same month they drew another like draft on the same company for the sum of $658.31, which they also deposited with the bank for collection. Thus all of the drafts, and Greene & Embrey had no security for the payment of the price of the stock which they had shipped. In accordance with the usual course of business, the Farmers' & Traders' National Bank sent forward these several drafts to their correspondent, the Hanover National Bank of New York City, and that bank in turn transmitted the drafts to the First National Bank of Jersey City, to the end that the last-named bank should there present to the drawee at that place the several drafts for payment. The 2d of July was Sunday. By the usual course of mail the first two of the above-mentioned drafts would have reached the Hanover National Bank as early as the opening on the morning of Monday, July 3d, and it appeared upon the trial that the drafts were in the hands of the Hanover National Bank at that time; but for some reason they were not received by the First National Bank of Jersey City until the forenoon of Wednesday the 5th of July. The 4th of July being a holiday, no business was done by the banks of New York and Jersey City on that date. The First National Bank of Jersey City presented the drafts to the drawee for payment some time after the hour of 3 o'clock p.m. on July 5th, when payment was refused. The new Jersey Sheep & Wool Company had been in failing circumstances for some time previous, but continued to pay its obligations up to the hour of 3 p.m. on the 5th of July, when, having at about that hour made an assignment, it succumbed and closed its doors. The evidence tended to show that if the drafts had been presented on the 3d of July, or (probably) at the opening for business of the banks on the morning of the 5th, or soon after, the drafts would have been paid. The result was, as the evidence tended to show, that Greene & Embrey lost the amount represented by the first two drafts. It appears from the record that the draft for $658.31 was subsequently satisfied through legal proceedings taken for the collection of the amount represented by it, so that when the trial of this case took place the matter in controversy was restricted to the drafts for $3,993.72 and $4,097.69, respectively. The case was tried before Circuit Judge Taft and a jury at Covington. Proof was offered of the facts and circumstances relating to the two drafts then remaining as the foundation of the controversy, and in the course of the trial it appeared by evidence which was not objected to that the draft for $658.31, drawn on the 3d day of July, was received by the First National Bank of Jersey City, and presented for payment at the same time with the other two drafts. The evidence with regard to the history of all three of the drafts was commingled, and until after the evidence was offered, and the arguments of counsel to the jury upon the facts were made, no distinction in respect to the competency and relevancy of the proof was taken by counsel on...