Hendley v. Globe Refinery Co.
| Decision Date | 07 March 1904 |
| Citation | 79 S.W. 1163,106 Mo.App. 20 |
| Parties | R. G. HENDLEY, Appellant, v. GLOBE REFINERY COMPANY, Defendant; AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK of Louisville, Kentucky, Interpleader, Respondent |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.--Hon. J. H. Slover, Judge.
Affirmed.
Karnes New & Krauthoff for appellant.
(1) The parties to the trial of the issues in this case were not concerned with the controversy between plaintiff and defendant, and the interpleader was bound to recover upon its own title. Nelson Dist. Co. v. Hubbard, 53 Mo.App 23; Hewson v. Tootle, 72 Mo. 632; Dry Goods Co v. Carr, 83 Mo.App. 318. (2) The single issue was the interpleader's ownership of the money. If there was any evidence however slight, whether direct or inferential, upon which a jury might have based a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, the trial court erred in taking the case from the jury. Twohey v. Fruin, 96 Mo. 104; Callahan v. Warne, 40 Mo. 131; Buesching v. Gas Light Co., 73 Mo. 219; Wilson v. Board of Education, 63 Mo. 137; Charles v. Patch, 87 Mo. 450; Lee v. Knapp & Co., 137 Mo. 385; George v. Railway, 40 Mo.App. 433; Hadley v. Orchard, 77 Mo.App. 1; Overstreet v. Moser, 88 Mo.App. 72; Ward v. Steffen, 88 Mo.App. 571; Frick v. Railway, 75 Mo. 595, 601; Gannon v. Gas Co., 145 Mo. 502; George Adams & Frederick Co. v. Bank, 123 F. 641. (3) Where the indorsement is not restrictive, it is a question for the jury whether or not the original bank takes commercial paper from the depositor, as a purchaser, or as an agent for collection. 2 Randolph on Com. Paper, sec. 726; Bank v. Brightwell, 148 Mo. 358; Packing Co. v. Davis, 118 N.C. 548, 24 S.E. 365; Balbach v. Frelinghuysen, 13 F. 675; Railway v. Johnston, 133 U.S. 566; Ayres v. Bank, 72 Mo. 421; Bullene v. Coates, 79 Mo. 426; Flannery v. Coates, 80 Mo. 444; Skyles v. Bollman, 12 Mo.App. 597; 85 Mo. 35; Kirschenschlager v. Armitage Herschel Co., 58 Mo.App. 165; Neill v. Produce Co., 23 S. E. (W. Va.) 702.
Thomas T. Crittenden and Elijah Robinson for respondent.
(1) The documentary evidence in this case, the probative force and effect of which it was the duty of the court to declare, made a prima facie case for the interpleader, and there was not a particle of evidence to rebut this prima facie case. The court, therefore, did right in directing the jury to return a verdict for the interpleader. (2) There is no question but what it was the duty of the court to pass upon and declare the probative force and effect of this documentary evidence, and to direct a verdict thereon, if it was legally sufficient to make out a prima facie case in favor of the interpleader, and uncontradicted. 6 Ency. of Pl. and Prac. 675; Bevans v. U.S. 13 Wall. 56; Knox v. Fair, 17 Ala. 503; Heinsen v. Lamb, 117 Ill. 549; Ins. Co. v. Butler, 70 Ind. 1; Potter v. Wooster, 10 Iowa 334; Webb v. Mears, 45 Pa. St. 222; Williams v. Davidson, 43 Tex. 1; Ayres v. Bank, 79 Mo. 421; Bullene v. Coates, 79 Mo. 426; Flannery v. Coates, 80 Mo. 444. (3) Under the evidence in this case the trial court could not possibly have done otherwise than direct a verdict for the plaintiff. Jackson v. Hardin, 83 Mo. 175; Mexico v. Jones, 27 Mo.App. 534; Reichenbach v. Ellerbe, 115 Mo. 588; Heit v. Railway, 130 Mo. 132; Powell v. Railway, 76 Mo. 80; Avery v. Fitzgerald, 74 Mo. 207; Long v. Moon, 107 Mo. 338; Bank v. Hainlane, 67 Mo.App. 483; Huttig v. Gitchell, 69 Mo.App. 115.
On the fifteenth day of April, 1902, the Globe Refinery Company delivered to a railroad company at Louisville, Kentucky, to be shipped to Kansas City, two cars of oil, and received from said railroad company a shipper's order bill of lading therefor, whereby the said railroad company acknowledged the receipt of said oil and agreed to transport the same to Kansas City, and there deliver the same to the order of said Globe Refinery Company, and to notify Peet Bros. Manufacturing Co. Said refinery company had contracted with said manufacturing company to sell it said oil and on said April 15, 1902, said refinery company drew a draft on said Peet Bros. Manufacturing Co., payable to its own order, for the purchase price of said oil, and thereupon indorsed said draft, and deposited the same, with said bill of lading, indorsed in blank, thereto attached, in the said American National Bank, the above named respondent. Upon said draft and bill of lading being deposited as aforesaid, the said American National Bank gave said Globe Refinery Company credit for the amount thereof, $ 4,254, in its account in said bank, and the same thereupon became subject to the checks of said Globe Refinery Company, and, in point of fact, the whole amount of said deposit was, during the same day, and in the usual course of business, checked out of said bank by said Globe Refinery Company. On the same day said draft was indorsed. "Pay any bank or banker or order American National Bank, Louisville, Kentucky, Charles Warren, Cashier, April 15, 1902," and sent to the Fort Dearborn National Bank of Chicago for collection, and upon receipt of the same said Chicago bank sent said draft to the Stock Yards Bank of Commerce of Kansas City, for collection. The American National Bank, at the time it sent said draft to the Chicago bank, charged the amount thereof to said Chicago bank, and upon receipt of said draft said Chicago bank credited the amount thereof to said American National Bank. Shortly after said draft and bill of lading were received by said Stock Yards Bank of Commerce, the plaintiff instituted this suit and caused notice of garnishment to be served on said bank, intending thereby to attach said draft and bill of lading as the property of said Globe Refinery Company. Thereupon, to avoid trouble, expense and inconvenience, it was agreed by the parties concerned, that said Stock Yards Bank of Commerce might deliver said bill of lading to said Peet Bros. Manufacturing Co. and collect from said company the amount of said draft, and that said Stock Yards Bank of Commerce should hold the proceeds of said draft a sufficient length of time to give the said plaintiff an opportunity to serve upon it another notice of garnishment, which the said plaintiff did, causing the sheriff to notify said Stock Yards Bank of Commerce that he attached in its hands the proceeds of said draft as the property of the said Globe Refinery Company, the above named defendant. On the second day of the then ensuing term of the circuit court, the said American National Bank filed its interplea in said cause claiming the proceeds of said draft which had been attached in the hands of said Stock Yards Bank of Commerce, as aforesaid. Afterwards, plaintiff filed an answer to said interplea, denying each and every allegation therein contained.
On the trial of the issue between the interpleader and the plaintiff, the interpleader put in evidence the said draft, with the indorsements thereon as aforesaid, and also a copy of the deposit slip showing the deposit of said draft in the said American National Bank, to the credit of the said Globe Refinery Company, and a copy of the account of the said Globe Refinery Company, taken from the books of the American National Bank showing that the amount of said draft was placed to the credit of said Globe Refinery Company on said fifteenth day of April, 1902, the day the same was deposited, and that the whole thereof was checked out by said Globe Refinery Company on the same day.
The depositions of the cashier and president of interpleader, and that of the secretary and treasurer of the Globe Refinery Company were read in evidence. The latter testified that said refinery company sold to the interpleader said draft in the usual course of business, received credit for the same, and used the proceeds in its business and for its own benefit that after the draft, or the proceeds, were attached, the cashier of the interpleader endeavored to have defendant company consent to having the draft charged back to his company which h...
To continue reading
Request your trial