Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 23 January 1901
• Parties: LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. JOHNSON. [1]
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

30 So. 580

128 Ala. 634

LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. JOHNSON. ^[1]

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 23, 1901

Appeal from circuit court, Geneva county; John P. Hubbard, Judge.

Action by the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company against J. J Johnson. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Thos G. & Chas. P. Jones and Alex. C. Birch, for appellant.

Mulkey & Mulkey, for appellee.

SHARPE J.

This suit depends on facts which are undisputed. The plaintiff for the purpose of settling a debt it owed to the Converse Bridge Company, prepared a statement of the claim in the form of an approved account, having thereon a form of receipt in blank, together with a statement that "this voucher, when properly signed, becomes a draft, without exchange, on the treasurer of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad, at Louisville, Kentucky." This paper the plaintiff directed through the mail to the bridge company, and it came to the hand of one Watson, who had been in the bridge company's employ. Watson, pretending to have authority to represent the bridge company, but lacking such authority, wrote at the end of the receipt, "Converse Bridge Co., by J. Watson," and handed the paper to the cashier of defendant's bank, who, acting for the defendant, paid Watson the amount of the claim. The cashier wrote his name as a witness to the signature written by Watson on the receipt, indorsed the paper in the name of the Planters' Bank, under which name the defendant conducted a private banking business, and sent it to the Citizens' National Bank of Pensacola, Fla., wherein the amount of the claim was placed to defendant's credit. The Pensacola bank indorsed the paper, and sent it to the Louisville Banking Company, to which the plaintiff, by its treasurer, paid the amount of the claim on presentation of the paper. Before paying, the plaintiff had no knowledge of Watson's lack of authority to sign the receipt, and it is not shown that the defendant had such knowledge before this suit was brought.

To establish a right of action in assumpsit, the plaintiff was under the necessity of proving that there existed between itself and the defendant some privity of contract, created by express promise or by implication of law. The authorities cited in briefs bearing on rights and liabilities of parties to commercial paper are without application. The voucher in question was not a draft, in the sense that the term "draft"...