McCollum v. Graber
Decision Date | 11 December 1944 |
Docket Number | 4-7484 |
Citation | 184 S.W.2d 264,207 Ark. 1053 |
Parties | McCollum v. Graber |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Mississippi Circuit Court, Chickasawba District; Zal B Harrison, Judge.
Reversed.
W Leon Smith, for appellant.
Langdon R. Jones, for appellee.
OPINION
Frank McCollum, as plaintiff, filed action against appellees, as defendants, to recover the amount of $ 238, the proceeds of a U. S. government check alleged to have been stolen from the plaintiff, and cashed by the defendants, who in turn received the money thereon from the U. S. Government. At the conclusion of all of the evidence, the trial court instructed a verdict for the defendants. Should the court have submitted the case to the jury? That is the only question involved on this appeal.
The rule is well established that in determining on appeal the correctness of the trial court's action in directing a verdict for the defendant we take that view of the evidence most favorable to the plaintiff. LaFayette v. Merchants Bank, 73 Ark. 561, 84 S.W. 700, 68 L. R. A. 231, 108 Am. St. Rep. 71; Brigham v. Dardanelle Railroad Company, 104 Ark. 267, 149 S.W. 90; and see many other cases collected in West's Arkansas Digest, "Appeal and Error," § 927 (7). With this rule in mind, we give the plaintiff's version of the facts:
On February 28, 1943, check for $ 238 was issued by the Treasury Division of the United States, drawn on the Treasurer of the United States, payable to "Mary Pepple, Pascola, Mo.," and stating: "Object for which drawn: Veterans' Administration." Mrs. Mary Pepple, who lived 125 yards from the store of appellant in Pascola, Missouri, indorsed the check and received the full amount of money on the check from the plaintiff on March 2, 1943. There were no banking facilities at Pascola. The next day while the plaintiff was making a list of various checks to take to Kennett, Missouri (his banking point), he was called from his office for a moment, and when he returned the check was gone. It was stolen in his absence. At that time it bore only the indorsement of Mary Pepple. Immediately after the discovery that the check had been stolen, plaintiff notified the Government in an endeavor to have payment stopped. Neither Mary Pepple nor anyone for her, nor the plaintiff nor anyone for him, ever transferred or delivered the check to the defendants or anyone for them. The fact that the check was stolen from the plaintiff is not controverted. The trial court so stated.
The defendants, trading under the firm name of Graber's Department Store, are engaged in business in Blytheville, Arkansas, some twenty-five miles from Pascola, Missouri. At the times herein involved the Government was building near Blytheville an airport and other facilities for the war effort; and the government paydays were the first and fifteenth of each month; and the defendants cashed many government checks at the store after banking hours. On March 8, 1943, the defendants cashed the check here involved, without requiring the holder to indorse the check or be identified in any way, although there was a sign furnished by the U. S. Government hanging over the cash register in the defendants' store, and warning that all persons presenting checks should be identified. When the defendants cashed the check, it contained only the indorsement of Mary Pepple. Such was the plaintiff's case. The defendants claimed in defense that they were holders in due course, and were therefore protected.
Before reviewing the testimony of the witnesses (and there were only two) for the defendants, we state some of the applicable legal principles. Arkansas adopted the Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law by Act No. 81 of 1913, as now contained in § 10152, et seq. of Pope's Digest. Section 10213 of Pope's Digest is § 55 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, and reads:
Section 10217 of Pope's Digest is § 59 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, and reads:
In 8 Am. Juris. 331 et seq., the general rules on theft of a negotiable instrument are stated as follows:
". . ., the transferee of lost negotiable paper must, to acquire valid title thereto, have both paid a valuable consideration and taken it bona fide; if circumstances exist which are calculated to raise suspicion in the mind of a man of ordinary prudence and discretion, the purchaser of such paper will be prevented from acquiring better title than that of his vendor." (p. 334); see, also, 10 C. J. S. 1117, § 507.
In the Uniform Laws Annotated, published by Edward Thompson Company, in the title on "Negotiable Instruments" (vol. V, part 2, p. 229, et seq.) there are annotations on § 59 of the Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law. In Note 52 on page 247 under the subject of "Theft," there are cases from numerous jurisdictions to sustain the general rule that proof of theft shifts the burden of proof to the holder to prove that he, or someone under whom he claims, acquired the title as a holder in due course, i. e., for value and in good faith.
In Daniel on Negotiable Instruments, 7th Edition, §§ 1731-1732 the rule is stated:
From these authorities, -- and with the theft of the check from the plaintiff being uncontroverted, -- the law is: that the thief had a defective title (§ 10213, Pope's Digest), and the burden was on the defendants (under § 10217, Pope's Digest) to prove that they were, or the person from whom they acquired title was, a holder...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Lull
...or stolen from him, the holder has the burden of proving that he acquired the instrument as a holder in due course. McCollum v. Graber, 1944, 207 Ark. 1053, 184 S.W.2d 264; Harter v. People's Bank, 1927, 221 App.Div. 122, 223 N.Y.S. 118; Warren v. Smith, 1909, 35 Utah 455, 100 P. 1069, 136 ......
-
Elbar Realty, Inc. v. City Bank & Trust Co.
...Crittenden v. Widrevitz, 8 Cir., 272 F. 871, 873-874, certiorari denied 257 U.S. 636, 42 S.Ct. 48, 66 L.Ed. 409; McCollum v. Graber, 207 Ark. 1053, 1055-1059, 184 S.W.2d 264. See Hunt v. Green, 271 Ill.App. 228, 233; Mitchell v. Swesnik, 324 Ill.App. 314, 58 N.E.2d 186, appeal denied 326 Il......
- McCollum v. Graber, 4-7484.
-
In re Carroll
...to the cases cited by the Court in the above quoted decision, see, Thompson v. Clark, 221 Ark. 955, 257 S.W.2d 42; McCollum v. Graber, 207 Ark. 1053, 184 S.W.2d 264. Compare, Wong Ken Foon v. Brownell, 9 Cir., 218 F.2d 444; National Postal Transport Association v. Hudson, 8 Cir., 216 F.2d 1......