Gregg v. Bank of Columbia

• Decision Date: 17 October 1905
• Parties: GREGG v. BANK OF COLUMBIA.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

52 S.E. 195

72 S.C. 458

GREGG v. BANK OF COLUMBIA.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

October 17, 1905

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Richland County; Purdy Judge.

Action by Joseph Gregg against the Bank of Columbia. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

D. W Robinson, for appellant. Barron & Ray, for respondent.

WOODS J.

The Bank of Columbia, defendant in this action, appeals from a judgment recovered against it for damages for the conversion of three car loads of corn. The exceptions charge error in refusing to grant a nonsuit, in the admission of evidence, in the charge to the jury, and in refusing a new trial.

A brief statement of the evidence will so show the true relation of the parties and the rights and duties which grew out of that relation that the case will be relieved of much apparent complication. The business of the plaintiff, Joseph Gregg, in the city of Chicago, was to ship grain, usually on orders but occasionally to brokers, for sale on his own account. The three carloads of corn with which we are now concerned had been bought on order, but the orders were canceled before shipment, and thereupon the plaintiff sent them to J. D. Miot, a grain broker, of Columbia, S. C., and made separate drafts on him with bills of lading attached for each car of corn, amounting in the aggregate to $1,238.05. These drafts were in favor of Wanzer & Co., a large brokerage house of Chicago, who advanced to Gregg the amount of the drafts, and who in turn placed the drafts, with the bills of lading attached, to their own credit in American Trust & Savings Bank of Chicago. This bank sent the drafts and bills of lading to the Bank of Columbia, with instructions to collect and remit proceeds for its credit to National Bank of the Republic in New York. Across the left end of each of the drafts was the following instruction: "Do not surrender documents until draft is paid. If not paid promptly notify ______, Chicago, giving reasons and hold for instructions." The Bank of Columbia received the papers on June 7, 1901, and after several refusals by Miot to accept or pay the drafts, returned them to the Chicago bank. A second time they were sent for collection, and returned after a like unsuccessful effort to collect. Upon receiving them a third time, after again presenting them to Miot, the Bank of Columbia sold the corn to a third party on July 25, 1901, for the face of the drafts, storage charges, and freight, and remitted the amount of the drafts, less exchange, to National Bank of the Republic for credit of American Trust & Savings Bank. The plaintiff had no notice of the sale until receipt of a letter from Miot, dated August 7, 1901, advising of his inability to deliver a carload of corn he had contracted to sell, because all the corn had been already sold by the Bank of Columbia. In the meantime corn had advanced in price. The plaintiff's claim was for $720, alleged to be the difference between the price realized for the corn and the highest market price from the date of the alleged conversion to the time of the trial. The defendant endeavored to prove as a material fact that the intention of Gregg, the drawer, was not, as he alleged it was, to make Miot, the drawee, merely his broker to sell the corn, pay the drafts, and account for the sale, but that Miot should buy the corn and become himself absolute owner on payment of the drafts. Assuming that the evidence left this issue of fact in doubt, it was quite immaterial, in view of the undisputed documentary evidence, what the original position and rights of Miot were, because, if the jury had taken defendant's view, when Miot refused payment of the drafts, which was the condition of his acquiring ownership and possession of the corn, the ownership stood as if the drafts had never left the bank in Chicago. Although the drafts were returned to the Chicago bank and resent for collection several times, the original instruction to hold and notify in case of nonpayment was not only altered, but was each time resent with the papers. If Gregg sold the corn to Miot on condition that he should pay the amount of the drafts as the purchase price, as the defendant contends he did, then he was bound to take the price agreed upon from Miot, notwithstanding a rise in the price of corn, but the Bank of Columbia had no right to bind him to sell to another at the same price or at any price. While the bank of Columbia no doubt acted in good faith, the documents in its hands afforded no justification for the sale of the corn.

1. The Chicago owner of the corn had through the drafts and bills of lading invested the Bank of Columbia with legal authority to offer the corn to Miot-- whether as purchaser or as agent of the plaintiff, is not material; but when he refused to take it, the authority of the bank was at an end, and it had no more right to sell the corn to another than if it had never had the...