Liberty Cent. Trust Co v. Union Trust Co

• Decision Date: 12 November 1925
• Docket Number: (No. 253.)
• Parties: LIBERTY CENTRAL TRUST CO. v. UNION TRUST CO.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

130 S.E. 113
(190 N. C. 468)

LIBERTY CENTRAL TRUST CO.
v.
UNION TRUST CO.

(No. 253.)

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 12, 1925.

[130 S.E. 114]

Appeal from Superior Court, Wake County; Daniels, Judge.

Action by the Liberty Central Trust Company against the Union Trust Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. No error.

Willis Smith and Winston & Brassfield, all of Raleigh, for appellant.

M. Ashby Lambert and Robert N. Simms, both of Raleigh, for appellee.

ADAMS, J. The plaintiff, formerly the Liberty Bank of St. Louis, is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Missouri, and the defendant is a corporation created under the laws of North Carolina, having its principal office in the city of Raleigh. On August 24, 1920, the defendant executed and delivered to the Moon Motorcar Company the following certificate of deposit:

"Moon Motorcar Company has deposited in this company $13,467.32, payable to the order of themselves in current funds on the return of this certificate properly indorsed 90 days after date, with interest at 6 per cent, per annum. Interest to cease after 90 days.

"[Signed] Union Trust Company,

"By J. Cooper Young, Pres."

The defendant's corporate seal was affixed. The plaintiff alleged that the certificate of deposit was negotiable and that the plaintiff was a holder in due course by virtue of the Moon Company's indorsement, transfer, and delivery thereof for value and before maturity, and contended that the title thus transferred was unincumbered and free from any and all equities pleaded in behalf of the defendant. The defendant denied that the plaintiff was a holder in due course, and contended that the plaintiff was the agent for collection of the Moon Company and not the real party in interest; that these two had conspired to collect the amount due on the certificate for the wrongful purpose of relieving the Moon Company from the operation of an attachment and judgment in a case prosecuted against the Moon Company by one H. L Whitaker; and that the plaintiff in no event would suffer any loss.

On November 22, 1920, the certificate was protested for nonpayment; but on March 21, 1921, the defendant made a payment of $11,-267.32, with interest from November 22, 1920, leaving unpaid the sum of $2,200. The defendant denied liability for the remainder and the plaintiff waived no rights, legal or equitable, but expressly reserved its right to bring suit for the amount claimed. The summons was issued on May 25, 1921. Upon the trial the plaintiff introduced in evidence the certificate of deposit, the protest thereof, and the deposition of Edward Barklage, vice president of the plaintiff company. The defendant offered no evidence. Only one issue was submitted to the jury:

"Is the plaintiff the holder in due...