Noble v. Doughten

Citation83 P. 1048,72 Kan. 336
Decision Date09 December 1905
Docket Number14,309
PartiesGEORGE M. NOBLE et al. v. WILLIAM DOUGHTEN
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided. July, 1905.

Error from Shawnee district court; Z. T. HAZEN, judge.

STATEMENT.

NOBLE & CO., of Topeka, Kan., being indebted to William Doughten, of Philadelphia, made remittance by means of their check on Gilman, Son & Company, bankers, of New York. The check was forwarded from Philadelphia to New York, and when presented was taken up by Gilman, Son & Company with their own check on the Western National Bank, of New York. Before the latter check was presented Gilman, Son &amp Company failed. The payee of the check on the Western National Bank then repossessed itself of the Noble & Co. check and caused it to be presented and protested. Without knowledge of the facts Noble & Co. issued a second check for their original indebtedness, which was duly collected. Upon obtaining full information concerning the manner in which their first check had been handled, Noble & Co. sued Doughten for the amount of the second remittance. Judgment was rendered against them on the following findings of fact and conclusion of law:

"FINDINGS OF FACT.

"(1) At and for some time prior to the times mentioned in these findings of fact the plaintiffs, George M. Noble, A. D Washburn, and J. H. Noble, constituted a partnership, were doing business under the firm name of George M. Noble &amp Co., and were engaged in business in the city of Topeka, and among other things said partnership made collections for non-residents.

"(2) Prior to the 11th day of October, 1902, the plaintiffs made a collection for the defendant, William Doughten, amounting to $ 1548.75, and on said October 11, 1902, the plaintiffs drew their check upon Gilman, Son & Company, of New York city for $ 1543.75, payable to William Doughten, who then and for a long time prior thereto had resided in the city of Philadelphia, Pa., this being the amount due on said collection after plaintiffs had deducted their commission for making the same. Said check was in due course of mail forwarded to the defendant. A copy of said check is in words and figures as follows, to wit:

"'No. 5022. Geo. M. Noble & Co., Financial Agents.

TOPEKA, KAN., October 11, 1902.

"'Pay to the order of Wm. Doughten ($ 1543.75) fifteen hundred forty-three and 75/100 dollars.

GEO. M. NOBLE & CO.

By A. D. WASHBURN.

" To Gilman, Son & Company, New York.'

"(3) The check described in finding No. 2 was received by the defendant Doughten on October 14, 1902, and on the same day was duly indorsed by him and deposited in the City Trust Safe Deposit and Surety Company of Philadelphia, that being the banking-house in which the defendant transacted his business, and said check being deposited in the usual and ordinary course of business pursued in transactions of that kind.

"(4) At the time the defendant received said check from the plaintiffs there was no agreement or understanding between him and plaintiffs that said check should be received in payment of the amount due from plaintiffs to defendant.

"(5) The City Trust, Safe Deposit and Surety Company of Philadelphia, referred to in finding No. 3, on the same day said check was received by it for deposit forwarded the same to its New York correspondent, the Produce Exchange Bank, of New York, and the same was received by said Produce Exchange Bank on the morning of October 15, 1902, at about 8:30 o'clock A. M. No letter of instruction accompanied said check, but a deposit slip was enclosed in the envelope therewith.

"Before forwarding said check as above recited, the City Trust, Safe Deposit and Surety Company placed thereon the following indorsement: Pay New York Exchange Bank or order. Indorsements guaranteed.--THE CITY TRUST, SAFE DEPOSIT AND SURETY COMPANY OF PHILADELPHIA. JAS. F. LYNDE, Secretary and Treasurer.'

"(6) The Produce Exchange Bank, referred to in finding No. 5, presented said check to Gilman, Son & Company, of New York, on October 15, 1902, some time before noon, and Gilman, Son & Company drew their check in favor of said Produce Exchange Bank for an equal amount upon the Western National Bank, and took up the check drawn by plaintiffs. At that time there was no agreement or understanding between Gilman, Son & Company and said Produce Exchange Bank that this transaction should constitute a payment of the check drawn by plaintiffs, as described in finding No. 2, but it was the usual and ordinary method of transacting business of that character in the city of New York.

"(7) At the time the check described in finding No. 2 was presented to Gilman, Son & Company said last-named company had on hand more than sufficient funds belonging to the plaintiffs to pay said check, and doubtless would have paid the same if the cash had been demanded by the party presenting the check. At the time, and for a long time prior thereto, Gilman, Son & Company had been engaged in the banking business in New York city, and was a reputable banking-house in good standing.

"(8) Said banking-house of Gilman, Son & Company closed its doors and ceased to do business at about 2:45 o'clock P. M. on October 16, 1902; suspended payment of all checks, and executed a deed of assignment on the evening of that day. The preparation of said deed of assignment was commenced immediately after said banking-house had closed its doors.

"(9) The check drawn by Gilman, Son & Company upon the Western National Bank in favor of said Produce Exchange Bank, as recited in finding No. 6, was presented in due course of business, passing through the clearing-house, and payment thereof was refused for the reason that Gilman, Son & Company had closed their doors and had no deposit in said Western National Bank out of which said check could be paid.

"(10) All of the New York banks referred to in these findings of fact were members of the clearinghouse association of the city of New York, except the banking-house of Gilman, Son & Company. There are about sixty banks in New York city which belong to said association, and about twenty-five or thirty private banks and banking institutions in said city which do not belong to said clearing-house association.

"(11) The method in which the business of said clearing-house association of New York city is done, as between the banks belonging to said association, is substantially as follows: The checks deposited in a bank on any particular day are assorted and distributed into a rack in which each bank belonging to the clearing-house association has a pigeonhole, so that the checks upon different banks are collected together and made into packages. The next morning thereafter the packages so made up are sent to the clearinghouse and delivered to the representatives of the several banks. There is a regular system or practice of delivering the checks at the various desks, so that when the checks are all delivered or exchanged clearance is made and each bank receives all checks drawn upon it, and each bank delivers to the representatives of all other banks checks drawn upon such other banks and paid through it. Each bank then foots up its debit and credit amounts, and if the result is a debit balance it is required to send to the clearing-house by half-past twelve o'clock that day the cash necessary to provide for said debit balance; but if such bank has a credit balance, it receives its cash credit about half-past one o'clock that day.

"(12) Where a check is drawn by one bank upon another bank, either being a member of the clearinghouse association, the custom is for said check to go through the clearing-house for collection. The aggregate amount of checks passing through said clearinghouse association of New York city each day would amount approximately to $ 250,000,000. The number of checks so handled through the clearing-house per day is ordinarily numbered in the millions. There is no charge made by New York banks for the collection of checks in the city of New York.

"(13) When the check of plaintiffs was presented to Gilman, Son & Company, and that bank issued its check therefor, the plaintiffs' check was stamped 'paid,' and after the check of said Gilman, Son & Company had been dishonored by the Western National Bank, and after Gilman, Son & Company had closed their doors and made an assignment for the benefit of their creditors, the Produce Exchange Bank sent its representative to Gilman, Son & Company and procured the check which had been drawn by the plaintiffs, described in finding No. 2, to be protested for non-payment.

"(14) The check drawn by Gilman, Son & Company upon the Western National Bank in favor of the Produce Exchange Bank, as recited in finding No. 6, was received at the Produce Exchange Bank about 2:30 o'clock P. M. on October 15 1902, was charged to the Western National Bank, the stamp of said Produce Exchange Bank was placed upon the check, and the same was assorted and distributed, as any other check that came in, after being stamped 'paid.' Said check remained in said Produce Exchange Bank, assorted and distributed as above recited, until five o'clock on October 15, when it was placed in the safe over night, and on the morning of the 16th of October the same was taken from the safe and placed in the pigeonhole where it had been after assorting and distributing on the day before. Said check went through the usual course of the clearing-house and went into the hands of the Western National Bank. The representative of said Produce Exchange Bank left said bank with said check and others about twenty minutes before ten o'clock A. M. , and reached the clearing-house at about fifteen minutes before ten o'clock on October 16, and said check then passed to the hands of the Western National Bank at about...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • In re Ruskay
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • February 2, 1925
    ...bank simply to act as agent for collection, a different course would have been pursued. As was said in Noble v. Doughten, 72 Kan. 336, 344, 83 P. 1048, 1051 (3 L. R. A. N. S. 1167): "If the depositor had desired to establish the relation of principal and agent between himself and the deposi......
  • Acme Hay & Mill Feed Co. v. Metro. Nat. Bank of Minneapolis
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • December 11, 1924
    ...Bank v. McMurrough, 24 Okl. 210, 103 P. 601;Scott v. McIntyre, 93 Kan. 508, 144 P. 1002, L. R. A. 1915D, 139;Noble v. Doughten, 72 Kan. 336, 83 P. 1048, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1167;Security Bank v. Fuel Co., 58 Minn. 141, 59 N. W. 987;In re State Bank, 56 Minn. 119, 57 N. W. 336, 45 Am. St. Rep......
  • Acme Hay & Mill Feed Co. v. Metropolitan National Bank
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • December 11, 1924
    ... ... Bank v. McMurrough, 24 ... Okla. 210 (103 P. 601); Scott v. McIntyre Co., 93 ... Kan. 508 (144 P. 1002, L.R.A. 1915 D 139); Noble v ... Doughten, 72 Kan. 336 (83 P. 1048); Security Bank v ... Northwestern Fuel Co., 58 Minn. 141 (59 N.W. 987); ... In re State Bank, 56 Minn ... ...
  • Adams County v. Meadows Valley Bank
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • May 18, 1929
    ... ... R. 716, 210 P. 499; ... Washington Shoe Mfg. Co. v. Duke, supra; ... Burton v. United States, 196 U.S. 283, 25 S.Ct. 243, ... 49 L.Ed. 482; Noble v. Doughten, 72 Kan. 336, 83 P ... 1048, 3 L. R. A., N. S., 1167; City of Douglas v. Federal ... Reserve Bank, supra; Fayetteville First ... Nat ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT