First State Bank of Brandon v. Kohl
| Citation | 79 Colo. 620,247 P. 571 |
| Decision Date | 21 June 1926 |
| Docket Number | 11479. |
| Parties | FIRST STATE BANK OF BRANDON v. KOHL et al. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Error to District Court, Cheyenne County; Arthur Cornforth, Judge.
Separate suits by Frank Kohl and others against the First State Bank of Brandon and another, consolidated for trial. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant named brings error and applies for supersedeas.
Supersedeas denied, and judgment affirmed.
John H. Voorhees, of Pueblo, and James C. Lang, of Eads, for plaintiff in error.
V. H Johnson, of Cheyenne Wells, for defendants in error.
Defendants in error Kohl, Burke, Nelson, and Foulke, plaintiffs below in four separate cases against First State Bank of Brandon and Union Pacific Railway Company, recovered judgment in replevin for certain shelled corn. The four suits were consolidated for trial. They are brought to us for review on writ of error, at the instance of the bank, and a supersedeas is asked for. The railway company was a defendant below, but is not before this court.
Except as otherwise noted, the facts in the four cases are substantially the same. The persons and corporations hereinafter discussed, whether parties to the suit or not are: (1) The four plaintiffs above named, hereinafter called the farmers; (2) the above bank, defendant in the four suits (3) W. J. McNeil, president of the bank; (4) The Rooks-Fehr Grain Company, hereinafter called the grain company; (5) Bowman, local buyer and general manager for the grain company; and (6) Mitchell, employed by the grain company. The case in this court is between the bank and the farmers. The others just mentioned, McNeil, the grain company, Bowman, and Mitchell, are not parties to the suit.
McNeil did all of the work of the bank, official and clerical. It was known as a 'one-man bank.' McNeil was posted on local conditions.
The grain company bought and sold corn. It was a customer of the bank--had a checking account there, sometimes with a large balance to its credit, and sometimes with its account overdrawn. It owed the bank, and McNeil was indorser for it or for Rooks, a member of the company, on a debt to a third person. The bank had an intimate acquaintance with the grain company's affairs and with its methods of buying and selling grain.
Bowman, upon behalf of the grain company, transacted most of its local business with the bank and the farmers. He was authorized to sign company checks on the bank.
The farmers raised corn on their several places, and Bowman, for his company, went around among them, buying their shelled corn, and agreeing with all of them to pay cash therefor. To two of the farmer plaintiffs Bowman gave the grain company's checks on the bank for the agreed price to be paid for the corn. To the other two farmer plaintiffs he gave no checks, but told them the money was waiting, and agreed to pay for the corn, cash on delivery, but failed to do so. Pursuant to arrangement, all corn was delivered to the railway company at one of its local stations, and a bill of lading made out, in the name of the grain company, and delivered to the latter.
Very shortly after the above happenings, on the morning of a certain day, McNeil, on opening the bank's mail, found two of the grain company's checks, given for the corn. He refused payment, account no funds. The grain company had given many checks in payment for its corn purchases, and McNeil admitted that he knew that he checks were in nearly all cases drawn in payment for corn bought by the company in Cheyenne county, where plaintiffs lived. He also admitted that he knew that the bill of lading represented corn purchased by the company in that county. In the afternoon or evening of the same day that the bank turned down the company's corn checks for lack of funds, one Mitchell, employed by the grain company, brought the bill of lading to McNeil in the bank. A draft was then drawn on another business house in Denver, the bill of lading attached thereto, and McNeil, for his bank, discounted the draft, and applied the proceeds to the grain company's checking account. This account was considerably overdrawn; that is the bank chose to honor some of the company's checks, whether it had funds or not, but it did not choose to honor the checks in question, given by the company to the farmers for their corn. McNeil dispatched the draft and bill of lading to Denver the same night, by special delivery letter for collection, but the draft was not paid, the Denver house having scented, or having been advised of, trouble in the meantime. McNeil made other efforts to realize...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Snyder v. Lincoln
...in cash on delivery and the buyer pays for the same with a bad check, no title to the property passes to the purchaser. First State Bank v. Kohl, 79 Colo. 620, 247 P. 571; Johnston v. First Nat. Bank, 108 Colo. 188, 115 P.2d 56. Even though this be true, it is still a question of fact as to......
-
Weyerhaeuser Timber Co. v. First Nat. Bank of Portland
... ... lumber at plants within the state of Washington; the ... Long-Bell plant being at Longview, the Snoqualmie Falls ... title. First State Bank of Brandon v. Kohl, 79 Colo ... 620, 247 P. 571; Hale & Co. v. Beley Cotton Co., 154 ... Tenn ... ...
-
Panhandle Pipe & Supply Co. v. S. W. Pressey & Son
...title to property can convey no title. Smith Premier Typewriter Co. v. Stidger, 18 Colo. App. 261, 71 P. 400; First State Bank of Brandon v. Kohl, 79 Colo. 620, 624, 247 P. 571. 'Subject to the provisions of this act, where goods are sold by a person who is not the owner thereof, and who do......
-
Bolz v. Security Mut. Life Ins. Co.
...express or implied agreement that the check be accepted as absolute payment. Section 4-2-511(3), C.R.S.; see also First State Bank v. Kohl, 79 Colo. 620, 247 P. 571 (1926); Globe Express Co. v. Taylor, 61 Colo. 430, 158 P. 717 (1916). A majority of jurisdictions apply this rule to insurance......