Meyer v. Chas. Rosenheim & Co.

• Decision Date: 30 April 1903
• Citation: Meyer v. Chas. Rosenheim & Co., 115 Ky. 409, 73 S.W. 1129 (Ky. Ct. App. 1903)
• Parties: MEYER v. CHAS. ROSENHEIM & CO.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

73 S.W. 1129

115 Ky. 409

MEYER v. CHAS. ROSENHEIM & CO.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

April 30, 1903

Appeal from Circuit Court, McCracken County.

"To be officially reported."

Action by Charles Rosenheim & Co. against H. L. Meyer.Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.Affirmed.

J. K Hendricks, for appellant.

Kohn Baird & Spindle and Quigley & Quigley, for appellees.

HOBSON J.

Appellees are wholesale merchants in Louisville.They had in their employ a bookkeeper named Altman, who forged their name on the back of checks belonging to them, and then delivered the checks to appellant, who paid him the money on them or sold him jewelry therefor.Appellant then collected the checks from the banks on whom they were drawn.Appellees, on discovering the forgery and the misappropriation of their property, brought this action against appellant to recover of him the amount he had collected on these checks belonging to them under the forged indorsement of their name by Altman.The checks amounted to $227.92.On final hearing the court gave judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.

There is no plea of estoppel, and we see nothing in the evidence to warrant an estoppel if pleaded.Appellees were not required to anticipate a forgery.The bookkeeper had no authority as such to sign the firm's name, and had nothing to do with the checks.He obtained them, in fact, surreptitiously, and without the line of his authority.Appellant appears to have been equally innocent, and so the precise question is on which of two equally innocent persons the loss should fall.In Moss on Banking, § 248, it is said: "If a negotiable instrument having a forged indorsement come to the hands of a bank and is collected by it, the proceeds are held for the rightful owners of the paper, and may be recovered by them although the bank gave value for the paper, and has paid over the proceeds to the party depositing the instrument for collection."See, to same effect, 3 Randolph on Commercial Paper, §§ 1469, 1739, 1777.The case of Farmer v. People's Bank (decided by the Supreme Court of Tennessee)47 S.W. 234, is much like this case.There Head, who had possession of a check payable to Farmer indorsed Farmer's name upon it without his knowledge or consent, and delivered it to the People's Bank, who collected the proceeds and permitted Head to check out the money.After this, Farmer demanded the money of the People's Bank, and, it...