James H. Forbes Tea & Coffee Co. v. Baltimore Bank

• Decision Date: 04 May 1940
• Docket Number: 36085
• Citation: 139 S.W.2d 507,345 Mo. 1151
• Parties: James H. Forbes Tea & Coffee Company, Appellant, v. Baltimore Bank, a Corporation
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

139 S.W.2d 507

345 Mo. 1151

James H. Forbes Tea & Coffee Company, Appellant, v. Baltimore Bank, a Corporation

No. 36085

Supreme Court of Missouri

May 4, 1940

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; Hon. Daniel E. Bird Judge.

Affirmed.

Ryland Stinson, Mag & Thomson and Wright Conrad for appellant.

(1) This court has jurisdiction of this appeal as it is a controversy in which the amount involved, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds $ 7500. Mo. Const., Art. VI, Sec 2; R. S. 1929, sec. 1914. (2) The court erred in giving defendant's instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence at the close of plaintiff's evidence and in overruling plaintiff's motion to set aside the nonsuit taken and suffered by the plaintiff. (a) In considering this appeal, all the evidence in the case and all reasonable inference from the evidence must be viewed most favorably to the plaintiff. Randall v. Kline, Inc., 322 Mo. 746, 18 S.W.2d 505; American Sash & Door Co. v. Commerce Trust Co., 332 Mo. 98, 56 S.W.2d 1034; Clubb v. Seullin, 235 Mo. 599, 135 S.W. 420; Frankel v. Hudson, 271 Mo. 503, 196 S.W. 1121; Fadem v. St. Louis, 99 S.W.2d 513; Stevers v. Walker, 125 S.W.2d 921. (b) Plaintiff is the real party in interest. Sexton v. Electric Car Co., 234 S.W. 358; First Natl. Bank v. Produce Bank, 338 Mo. 91, 89 S.W.2d 33; Matthews v. Ry. Co., 121 Mo. 336, 24 S.W. 591; Railway Co. v. Blunt, 165 F. 260; Hartford Ins. Co. v. Ry. Co., 74 Mo.App. 106; Foster v. Ry. Co., 143 Mo.App. 551, 128 S.W. 36; Earhart v. Ry. Co., 136 Mo.App. 617, 118 S.W. 657; Keeley v. Indemnity Co. of Amer. 222 Mo.App. 439, 7 S.W.2d 434; Subscribers, etc., v. K. C. Pub. Serv. Co., 230 Mo.App. 468, 91 S.W.2d 231; Swift & Co. v. Wabash, 149 Mo.App. 526, 131 S.W. 124; Gould v. Ry. Co., 315 Mo. 713, 290 S.W. 135; Garner v. Woods, 24 S.W.2d 708; Florida v. Ins. Co., 225 Mo.App. 49, 32 S.W.2d 111. (c) The defendant, by accepting checks payable to the plaintiff for deposit in Einhorn's personal account upon his endorsement, was guilty of conversion of the checks so accepted for deposit. A check may be the subject of conversion. K. C. Casualty Co. v. Bank, 191 Mo.App. 287, 177 S.W. 1092; Good Roads, Machinery Co. v. Bank, 267 S.W. 40; Landau Groc. Co. v. Bank, 223 Mo.App. 1181, 26 S.W.2d 794; Pierce v. Bank, 13 F.2d 40; Anderson v. Bank, 201 Mo.App. 400, 212 S.W. 60; Universal Carloading & Distributing Co. v. Bank, 224 Mo.App. 876, 27 S.W.2d 768; Jackson v. Natl. Bank, 20 S.W.2d 802; Austin Good Roads Machinery Co. v. Bank, 255 S.W. 585; Mead v. Southside Bank, 323 Mo. 404, 19 S.W.2d 664; Shafer Bros. v. Powell Mfg. Co., 52 S.W.2d 457; Oklahoma State Bank v. Galion Iron Works Mfg. Co., 4 F.2d 337; N. Y. Indemnity Co. v. Bank, 227 Mo.App. 878, 59 S.W.2d 741; N.W. Savs. Bank v. International Bank, 90 Mo.App. 205; Strong v. Trust Co., 263 S.W. 1038. (d) Power of agent to collect accounts for his principal does not give the agent authority to endorse principal's name to negotiable instruments. Good Roads Machinery Co. v. Bank, 267 S.W. 40; Kansas City Cas. Co. v. Bank, 191 Mo.App. 287, 177 S.W. 1092; Landau Groc. Co. v. Bank, 223 Mo.App. 118, 26 S.W.2d 794; Graham v. U.S. Savings Institute, 46 Mo. 186; 4 C. J., 256; 2 C. J. S., pp. 1191, 1221, 1300-1303; Oklahoma State Bank v. Iron Works, 4 F.2d 337; Jackson v. Bank, 18 L. R. A. 663; 7 C. J., 644; Brannon's Negotiable Instrument Law (4 Ed.), pp. 183, 195; Guaranty Trust Co. v. Bank, 183 A.D. 586; Pluto Co. v. Bank, 141 N.W. 220; Gene v. Bank, 77 N.W. 650; Strong v. Bank, 263 S.W. 1038; Quigley v. Mexico Savs. Bank, 80 Mo. 289; Breen v. Printing Press Co., 22 Pa. 275; Union House & Farm Co. v. Bank, 53 S.W.2d 1067; Mechanics Bank v. Schaumberg, 38 Mo. 228; Hackett v. Frank, 105 Mo.App. 384; 2 C. J., 556, 636; Springfield G. & E. Co. v. Surety Co., 250 S.W. 78; Gibson v. Ins. Co., 229 Mo.App. 867, 86 S.W.2d 400; Murphy v. Holliday, 223 Mo.App. 714, 16 S.W.2d 107. (e) The so-called power of attorney given by plaintiff to Einhorn gave Einhorn no authority to endorse plaintiff's name to negotiate instruments. Taylor v. Sartorious, 130 Mo.App. 23; 2 C. J., 556, 562, 1191; Mechanics Bank v. Schaumberg, 38 Mo. 141; Springfield G. & E. Co. v. Surety Co., 250 S.W. 78; Murphy v. Holliday, 16 S.W.2d 107; Haynes v. Carpenter, 86 Mo.App. 30; 2 C. J. S., p. 1223; Austin Western Road Machinery Co. v. Bank, 255 S.W. 585. (f) Knowledge of a ministerial agent is not knowledge of the principal. 2 C. J., p. 865; Mining Co. v. Fidelity & Cas. Co., 161 Mo.App. 198; American Sash & Door Co. v. Commerce Trust Co., 59 S.W.2d 1042, 332 Mo. 98; Paine v. Trustees Macalester College, 7 F.2d 176; Hunter v. Hunter, 39 S.W.2d 359, 327 Mo. 817; Case v. Hammond Packing Co., 105 Mo.App. 168, 79 S.W. 732; K. C. Casualty Co. v. Westport Bank, 191 Mo.App. 291, 177 S.W. 1092.

William S. Hogsett and Charles M. Blackmar for respondent.

(1) The trial court properly sustained defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's evidence, and overruled plaintiff's motion to set aside the nonsuit. The authority of Einhorn to endorse plaintiff's name on checks may be established as in other cases of agency. Sec. 2648, R. S. 1929; Bennett v. Potashnick, 214 Mo.App. 513; Bank v. Hohn, 146 Mo.App. 699. Plaintiff was bound by his endorsements if he had ostensible authority to endorse. Buffalo Trust Co. v. Producers Exchange, 224 Mo.App. 199, 23 S.W.2d 649; Gilmore Portland Cement Co. v. Leinard, 9 S.W.2d 863. The authority to endorse customers' checks was within Einhorn's authority as manager of plaintiff's Kansas City branch. Buffalo Trust Co. v. Producers Exchange, 224 Mo.App. 208, 23 S.W.2d 649; Robinson v. Mining Co., 178 Mo.App. 539, approved on certiorari, 196 S.W. 1131; Concrete & Steel Const. Co. v. Natl. Asphalt Refining Co., 2 S.W.2d 159; Henry Cowell Lime Co. v. Bank, 82 Cal.App. 524, 255 P. 881; 14a C. J. 359, sec. 2221; Rosenbaum v. Gillian, 101 Mo.App. 134; Gate City B. & L. Assn. v. Natl. Bank of Commerce, 126 Mo. 90; Farm & Home Savs. & L. Assn. v. Stubbs, 98 S.W.2d 332; Austin-Western Road Machinery Co. v. Bank, 255 S.W. 587; Sinclair Refining Co. v. Farmers Bank, 91 S.W.2d 122; Buffalo Trust Co. v. Producers Exchange, 224 Mo.App. 208, 23 S.W.2d 644; Napoleon Hill Cotton Co. v. Oetter Grocery Co., 222 S.W. 879; Glidden & Joy Varnish Co. v. Interstate Natl. Bank, 69 F. 912; Natl. Bank of the Republic v. Old Town Bank of Baltimore, 112 F. 728; Santa Marina Co. v. Bank, 254 F. 391; Chamberlin Co. v. Bank of Pleasanton, 107 Kan. 85; Sinclair Refining Co. v. First Natl. Bank of Moultrie, 45 Ga.App. 769, 165 S.E. 860; Iten Biscuit Co. v. Bank, 16 Tenn.App. 655, 65 S.W.2d 615; Rice v. Bank, 140 Wash. 20, 247 P. 1009; Cowell Lime Co. v. Bank, 82 Cal.App. 519, 255 P. 881; Grayburg Oil Co. v. Bank, 300 S.W. 960; Morris v. Hofferberth, 81 N.Y.S. 403, 81 A.D. 512; Burstein v. Sullivan, 119 N.Y.S. 317, 134 A.D. 623; Citizens Natl. Bank v. Wintler, 14 Wash. 558, 53 Am. St. Rep. 890, 45 P. 38; New York Iron Mine v. Bank, 39 Mich. 644. (2) Einhorn's authority to endorse customers' checks was, as a matter of law, within his express authority to "receive payment" of accounts. Johnson-Brinkman Co. v. Central Bank, 116 Mo. 570; Carroll Exchange Bank v. First Natl. Bank, 58 Mo.App. 26; Newton Burial Park v. Davis, 78 S.W.2d 154; Martin v. Illinois Bankers Life Assur. Co., 91 S.W.2d 649; Natl. Bank of the Republic v. Old Town Bank of Baltimore, 112 F. 728; Chamberlin Co. v. Bank of Pleasanton, 107 Kan. 83; Jackson v. Means, 12 S.W.2d 167; 6 Words & Phrases (1 Ed.), p. 5252; 3 Words & Phrases (2 Ed.), p. 930. (3) Einhorn's authority to endorse the particular checks in question is established by a prior course of dealing over a period of years. Farm & Home Savs. & L. Assn. v. Stubbs, 98 S.W.2d 334; Sinclair Refining Co. v. Farmers Bank, 91 S.W.2d 125; Austin-Western Road Machinery Co. v. Commercial State Bank, 255 S.W. 586, 282 S.W. 105; Edwards v. Thomas, 66 Mo. 482; Napoleon Hill Cotton Co. v. Oetter Grocery Co., 222 S.W. 880; Grayburg Oil Co. v. Bank, 300 S.W. 960.

OPINION

Tipton, J.

In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, an action was filed against respondent for conversion of 174 checks made payable to appellant in an amount aggregating $ 41,675.80. At the close of the appellant's evidence, the trial court gave an instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence. This appeal is to test the correctness of that ruling.

At the outset, we are met with respondent's motion to dismiss this appeal. We have examined the same and overruled the motion.

In reviewing the alleged error of the trial court in sustaining the demurrer at the close of appellant's evidence, we must consider as true all the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom tending to support appellant's theory of liability. Even so, we are of the opinion that the trial court's ruling was correct.

Briefly the essential facts as developed by the evidence are as follows: That the appellant is a well-known importer of tea, coffee and spices and manufacturer of flavoring extracts, with its main office and plant in St. Louis, Missouri, and branch offices and warehouses at Kansas City and Omaha; that Fred Einhorn was the manager of its Kansas City branch office and warehouse; that by his contract of employment he received a substantial monthly salary and 40 per cent interest in the profits of the Kansas City branch; that there were twelve to fifteen employees in this office, five or six of whom were salesmen; that Einhorn had the power to employ and discharge them; that he had full authority in the handling of customers' accounts and had full latitude in granting customers discounts for prompt payment of accounts and advertising allowances; that the Kansas City branch did a large business, which had been as large as $...