North Atchison Bank v. Garretson, 73.

• Decision Date: 13 June 1892
• Docket Number: 73.
• Citation: 51 F. 168
• Parties: NORTH ATCHISON BANK v. GARRETSON et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

51 F. 168

NORTH ATCHISON BANK v. GARRETSON et al.

No. 73.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

June 13, 1892

Willard P. Hall and Vinton Pike, for plaintiff in error.

L. C Krauthoff, for defendants in error.

Before CALDWELL and SANBORN, Circuit Judges, and SHIRAS, District judge.

SHIRAS District Judge.

The plaintiffs below, G. A. Garretson & Co., a firm engaged in the banking business at Muscatine, Iowa, brought this action in the United States circuit court for the western district of Missouri, against the North Atchison Bank, a corporation located at Westboro, Mo., to recover the amount of a check drawn by one James Tate on the defendant bank for the sum of $22,000. The case was submitted to the trial court upon an agreed statement of facts, and judgment was given in favor of the plaintiffs, the reasons therefor being very fully and ably stated in an opinion reported in 47 F. 867.

The facts necessary to be stated are as follows: In September 1888, the Muscatine Cattle Company sold to James Tate 1,000 head of cattle, at $22 per head, delivery of the cattle to be made at Pueblo, Colo. Tate offered to A. J. Streeter, the agent of the cattle company, in payment for the cattle, his check for $22,000 on the North Atchison Bank, and thereupon Streeter sent the following telegram to the bank:

'PUEBLO COLO., Sept. 2, 1888.

'To North Atchison Bank, Westboro, Mo.: Will you pay James Tate's check on you, twenty-two thousand dollars? Answer.

'A. J. STREETER.' To this telegram the following reply was sent and delivered to streeter:

'WESTBORO, MO., Sept. 29, 1888.

'To A. J. Streeter, Pueblo, Colo.: James Tate is good. Send on your paper.

NORTH ATCHISON BANK.'

On the receipt of this answer, and on the faith thereof, the Muscatine Cattle Company delivered the cattle to Tate, and accepted from him in payment thereof his check in the following form:

'WESTBORO, MO., Sept. 28, 1888.

'North Atchison Bank: Pay to the order of Muscatine Cattle Company twenty-two thousand dollars, with exchange.

'$22,000.

JAMES TATE.'

The cattle company, being at the time indebted to the plaintiff firm in a sum exceeding the amount of the check, exhibited the same, with the telegrams already set forth, to the plaintiff firm, and thereupon said firm accepted the check, giving the cattle company credit therefor. In due time the check was presented for payment to the North Atchison Bank, which was refused, the reason assigned being, 'Want of funds.' Subsequently the check was again presented, and a demand made for payment, which was refused, on the ground that 'Tate had countermanded the same.'

Counsel for plaintiff in error in the brief filed in the cause discuss at some length the question whether the check is to be deemed an inland bill of exchange or a certified check, but, as we view the case, these are matters aside from the real question at issue. In the petition filed in the cause the plaintiffs therein set forth the facts in extenso, and base the right of recovery thereon, regardless of the technical distinctions existing between inland bills of exchange and checks accepted or certified. The rights of the parties are dependent solely upon the question whether the North Atchison Bank bound itself unconditionally in writing to pay Tate's check on the bank for the sum of $22,000. If that is the fair meaning of the telegram passing between Streeter, as the representative of the Muscatine Cattle Company, and the defendant bank, then, as the admitted fact is that the company delivered the cattle to Tate and received the check in payment therefor on the faith of the promise made by the defendant bank, it follows that the bank is bound to make good the promise made.

When correspondence is had and a contract is entered into by means of the telegraph, it is not to be expected that the terms thereof will be set forth with as much fullness as would ordinarily be the case if the parties were in each other's presence. The telegraph, however, is now a well-recognized means of communication in the business world and contracts made through its use must be construed and enforced...