Kurtzeborn v. Liberty Bank

• Decision Date: 26 June 1923
• Docket Number: No. 17779.,17779.
• Citation: 253 S.W. 103
• Parties: KURTZEBORN v. LIBERTY BANK OF ST. LOUIS.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

253 S.W. 103

KURTZEBORN v.LIBERTY BANK OF ST. LOUIS.

No. 17779.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 26, 1923.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; John W. Calhoun, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Bertha Kurtzeborn against the Liberty Bank of St. Louis.Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.Affirmed.

H. L. Dyer, of St. Louis, for appellant.

Rassieur, Kammerer & Rassieur, of St. Louis, for respondent.

NIPPER, C.

Plaintiff seeks to recover of defendant the sum of $419.There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

In her petition she alleges that, on or about the 10th day of July, 1916, she deposited with defendant, which was at that time known as the German Savings Institution, the above-named sum in cash, which was to be remitted to Mrs. E. Griesedieck at Wiesbaden, Germany; that defendant failed, neglected, and refused to remit said money as directed, and has failed, neglected, and refused to return the same to plaintiff; that on the 25th day of March, 1920, defendant tendered to plaintiff a check for 2,244 marks, 30 pfs., drawn on the Deutsche Bank at Berlin, Germany; that plaintiff has refused to accept said check, and tenders the same to defendant.

From plaintiff's testimony it appears that in July, 1916, she was living in the city of St. Louis, Mo.On the 10th day of July, 1916, she saw Mr. Reiman, assistant cashier of the defendant institution, and spoke to him about sending this $419 to her sister at Wiesbaden, Germany.She told Reiman that she wanted to send the money only if it was perfectly safe to do so, and he assured her that it was and not to worry about it for a moment.She then asked What would be done in case the money was lost or misplaced, and Reiman told her that in that event the bank would return the $419 to her.She then handed Reiman the $419, and he gave her the following receipt for the money:

            "St. Louis, Mo., July 10, 1916
                   "Received of Mrs. B. Kurtzeborn, the sum of
                 $419.00 to be remitted to Mrs. E. Griesedieck
                 Wiesbaden
                                "German Say. Inst., Reiman."
                

Several months after this she received a letter from her sister, saying that the money had not been received.She then spoke to Reiman about it, and he suggested that she let the matter rest for a while, as he felt sure the money would reach there' almost any day.Several more months passed, and her sister had not yet received the money.She again spoke to Reiman, and, he said he would write the Guaranty Trust Company of New York and find out what they thought and wanted to do about it.He afterwards wrote plaintiff a letter, saying he had heard from the Guaranty Trust Company, and that the trust company suggested that plaintiff :et the matter rest until conditions became more normal again.Reiman advised her that the money had been sent to the Guaranty Trust Company.After this last conversation with Reiman, plaintiff received the following letter:

          "German Savings Institution
                            "St. Louis, Mo., March 21, 1917
                

"Mrs. Bertha Kurtzeborn.3651 Botanical Ave., St. Louis, Mo.—Dear Madam: In reply to your inquiry concerning a remittance which you requested us to make to Mrs. E. Griesedieck, on July 10, 1016, we beg to advise you that according to our files the Guaranty Trust Company of New York sent a letter of advice to its correspondent in Berlin, the Deutsche Bank, under elate of July 12, 1916, to pay to Mrs. E. Griesedieck, RuckertNo. 1, 1st Floor, Wiesbaden, Germany, the sum of 2,244.30 mks., the equivalent of $419.We took the matter up with the Guaranty Trust Company the latter part of January of this year, and at that time were advised that it had not received any advice from its correspondent in reference to the payment of this remittance.It would be our suggestion that you permit the matter to rest as it is for the present, and when conditions become normal we will take it up again, unless you receive report in the meantime that payment has been made.

"Yours very truly, Assistant Cashier."

After receiving this letter, she went to see Reiman several times.Her sister never received the $419, or any part thereof.When plaintiff went in the bank on March 25, 1920, Reiman handed her a draft for 2,244 marks, 30 pfs., which was tendered into court and to the plaintiff.After she had taken the draft home with her, and realizing that the same was equivalent to only about $35 in United States money, she returned to the bank the next morning and told Reiman that at the time he gave her the draft she did not realize what amount they were offering her, and that when she did ascertain what the marks were actually worth she told Reiman that she could not accept the check, and demanded the full $419.She informed him that he had promised to repay the full amount and that it was upon such assurance that she acted.Reiman informed her that that was all he would do in the matter.

From the defendant's evidence, as shown first by the testimony of Reiman, it appears that on the 10th day of July, 1916, plaintiff came into the bank to purchase a draft on Germany, and he(Reiman) informed her that they had discontinued the issuance of drafts, and that they had no drawing arrangements with their New York correspondent any more with Germany on account of the blockade, but that through their New York correspondent they were sending money by means of a letter and advice, which was merely an order to pay by means of a letter, and that they would, undertake to forward the equivalent in marks of United States money in that way.Thereupon plaintiff paid defendant $419, and he(Reiman) gave her the receipt heretofore referred to, deducting $1 for services and expenses, and remitted $418 by New York exchange to the Guaranty Trust Company, with instructions to make remittance.They received a receipted bill for the purchase from the trust company, and on July 12th the trust company wrote the following letter to the Deutsche Bank:

                           "July 12, 1916.
                

"Deutsche Bank, Berlin, Germany—Dear Sirs: On receipt of this letter kindly charge our account and pay to Mrs. E. Griesedieck, RuckertNo. 1, First Floor, Wiesbaden, Germany, mks. 2,240.30, twenty-two hundred forty-four marks and thirty pfs., for account of Mrs. B. Kurtzeborn, St. Louis, and by order of the German Savings Institution.St. Louis, Missouri.Awaiting your debit advice, we remain,"

Reiman denied that he told plaintiff that the defendant would guarantee the delivery of the money to her sister, or that it was absolutely safe to transmit the money in that particular manner, and explained that he would undertake to transmit the money by letter transfer, which was the only way that money could be transmitted to Germany at that time.He denied, also, that he told plaintiff that, if the money was not...