People's Sav. Bank & Trust Co. v. Lacey

• Decision Date: 17 February 1906
• Citation: 146 Ala. 688,40 So. 346
• Parties: PEOPLE'S SAVINGS BANK & TRUST CO. v. LACEY.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

40 So. 346

146 Ala. 688

PEOPLE'S SAVINGS BANK & TRUST CO. v. LACEY.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 17, 1906

Appeal from City Court of Birmingham; C. W. Ferguson, Judge.

"Not officially reported."

Action by Stephen Lacey against the People's Savings Bank &amp Trust Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

This was an action begun by appellee against the appellant bank to recover $100 alleged to have been deposited by appellee with appellant, which appellant on demand refused to pay to appellee. The defense set up is that appellee had drawn his check in favor of one Abernathy for the amount sued for which check was drawn on appellant bank and by it paid through clearing house. The reply to this defense was that appellee had postdated the check and before the date of payment had given appellant's receiving teller notice not to pay the check, and upon being required to do so had put notice in writing and handed it to appellant's receiving teller. The facts disclosed in the testimony without dispute are that appellee had $100 on deposit with appellant bank and some time in May drew a check on appellant in favor of one Abernathy for said amount. Said check was postdated ten days. About seven days before it was due appellee notified appellant's receiving teller not to pay the check. The teller required him to put the notice in writing, which he did. The check was indorsed by Abernathy to Rarden and by Rarden to the Bessemer Savings Bank, to the order of any bank or banker, payment guarantied, and was paid in clearing house at Birmingham, Ala., after notice to stop payment. On this state of facts the trial court gave plaintiff the affirmative charge. A number of pleas and motions were filed in the cause, which are unnecessary here to be set out.

W. K Terry, for appellant.

Ward &amp Drennen, for appellee.

HARALSON J.

The legal principles on which the decision of this case depends are well settled in the books. We cannot do better than quote some of them: "A check is simply a written order of a depositor to his bank to make a certain payment. It is executory, and as such it is of course revocable at any time before the bank has paid or committed itself to pay it. But after the bank has paid, or placed itself under an obligation, or has incurred a liability, to comply with the order, the drawer's power to revoke is at an end. * * * The bank is the drawer's agent. Its primary duty is to hold or to pay his money as he directs. Primarily it owes no duty to the holder, except under and by virtue of directions from the drawer. Until, by reason of these directions, it has assumed voluntarily, or by action of law has involuntarily come under, secondary and superseding obligations to the holder, the latest order from the drawer governs its right to act on his behalf." Morse on Banking (4th Ed.) vol. 1, § 398; Zane on Banks, p. 261, § 153; National Bank v....