Merchants' Bank v. Goodfellow

• Decision Date: 17 April 1914
• Docket Number: 2597
• Citation: 44 Utah 349,140 P. 759
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: MERCHANTS BANK v. GOODFELLOW

140 P. 759

44 Utah 349

MERCHANTS BANK v. GOODFELLOW

No. 2597

Supreme Court of Utah

April 17, 1914

APPEAL from District Court, Third District; Hon. M. L. Ritchie Judge.

Action by the Merchants Bank against Jesse Goodfellow.

Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

AFFIRMED.

Hutchinson & Bucher for appellant.

Young Snow & Ashton for respondent.

STRAUP J. McCARTY, C. J., and FRICK, J., concur.

OPINION

STRAUP, J.

In this case the court found:

"(2) That at Salt Lake City, Utah, on the 30th day of January, 1912, the defendant, Jesse Goodfellow, by his bill of exchange in words and figures as follows, to wit: 'Wool, Eisemann Brothers, 200 Summer Street. No. 3481 Salt Lake City, 1/30, 1912 At Sight Pay to the order of J. W. Cochran $ 500.00, five hundred and 00-100 account wool contract. [Signed] Jesse Goodfellow. Eisemann Brothers, Boston, Mass.'--requested Eisemann Bros. of the city of Boston, State of Massachusetts, to pay to the order of J. W. Cochran at sight $ 500. (3) That the said defendant then and there delivered the same to the said J. W. Cochran. (4) That on the 30th day of January, 1912, at Salt Lake City, Utah, the said J. W. Cochran, for value received, indorsed the same to the plaintiff company. (5) That on the 6th day of February, 1912, the said bill of exchange was presented to the said Eisemann Bros. for acceptance, but was not by them accepted. (6) That the said bill of exchange was duly protested for nonpayment, and this plaintiff paid as costs of protesting the same, two dollars. (7) That notice thereof was duly given to the defendant. (8) That the defendant has not paid the said bill of exchange, nor any part thereof, except the sum of $ 33.40, which amount the defendants should be credited P351 with and the amount deducted from the sums due on said bill of exchange." Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff in the sum of $ 468.60. The defendant appeals.

The principal assignment of error relates to the ruling refusing the defendant's motion for a nonsuit. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence the defendant interposed the motion "on the grounds that the draft sued on was the draft of Eisemann Bros. and not the draft of the defendant, Jess Goodfellow." We see nothing to support the motion. The plaintiff's evidence shows that in due course of business Cochran, who was a customer and a depositor at the bank, presented and indorsed the draft at the bank at Salt Lake City. The bank gave him face value for it, $ 250 in cash and a credit deposit of $ 250. The president of the bank testified that he knew Eisemann Bros. by reputation, and from general repute also knew that the defendant "was a purchaser of wool acting for them." He further testified:

"Mr Goodfellow or Eisemann Bros. didn't do business with our bank, but I have probably handled a great many of their drafts before. I have known that Mr. Goodfellow was the agent of Eisemann Bros. for a good while, and I relied on that fact when I cashed the draft. I had known he was their agent for some time. I knew Mr. Goodfellow had been buying wool for Eisemann Bros. for a long time, and if it had been somebody I didn't know I would not have cashed the draft. The inducement for me to purchase the draft was the fact that Mr. Cochran had an account at the bank." This but shows that the witness knew who Goodfellow, the drawer, and Eisemann Bros., the drawee, were, and that the one was a general agent of the other. But nothing, except as appears from the face of the draft itself, was made to appear what the draft was given for, or on whose behalf, or for whose benefit it was drawn. The draft on its face shows it to be Goodfellow's and not Eisemann Bros.' draft. There is nothing to show that anything was said or done, or...