First Nat. Bank of Manning v. Farneman

• Citation: 93 Iowa 161,61 N.W. 424
• Parties: FIRST NAT. BANK OF MANNING v. FARNEMAN.
• Decision Date: 20 December 1894
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa

93 Iowa 161

61 N.W. 424

FIRST NAT. BANK OF MANNING

v.FARNEMAN.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 20, 1894.

Appeal from district court, Carroll county; C. D. Goldsmith, Judge.

On the 7th day of November, 1892, the Bank of Kirkman drew its draft on the First National Bank of Carroll, Iowa, with the defendant as payee, for the sum of $350. The defendant sold the draft to the plaintiff bank, and transferred it by his indorsement in blank, on the 8th day of November, 1892. On the same day the plaintiff sent the draft for collection to its correspondent, the Valley Bank of Des Moines, at Des Moines, Iowa. On the next day the Valley Bank sent it for collection to the German Bank of Carroll, with its indorsement. The draft was received by the German Bank between 9 and 10 o'clock on the morning of the 10th day of November, and it was presented at the First National Bank of Carroll, and payment refused for want of funds on deposit by defendant. The draft was at once placed in the hands of a notary for protest, and, after due demand, notices were prepared for the plaintiff bank, the Valley Bank, and the defendant. It appears that at this time the defendant's residence was at Carroll, but that fact was not known to the notary. The three notices were inclosed in one envelope, and forwarded to the Valley Bank at Des Moines; and this bank forwarded the two notices, not for itself, to the plaintiff bank at Manning, where they were received on the morning of the 12th of November; and on the same day, and by the first train, the vice president of the bank proceeded to Carroll, and presented the notice to the defendant, and demanded payment of the draft, which was refused. Of the indorsements on the draft, those other than that by defendant are erased. This action, aided by attachment, is to recover from defendant the amount of the draft. The answer put in issue defendant's liability as indorser, and presented a counterclaim for the wrongful suing out of the attachment. The cause was tried to the court, without a jury, which found for the defendant on the issue as to his liability on the draft, and hence that the attachment wrongfully issued, and gave judgment for defendant on his counterclaim. The plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.F. M. Powers, for appellant.

M. W. Beach, for appellee.

GRANGER, C. J.

Counsel agree that the only question before the court is whether or not the notice given was sufficient to charge defendant as an indorser. After a refusal to pay the draft by the bank, immediate notice was essential to charge the indorser. Coal Co. v. Bowman, 69 Iowa, 150, 28 N. W. 496. The notice might have been given by being deposited in the post...