Rex Smith Propane, Inc. v. National Bank of Commerce
| Decision Date | 15 March 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. CA 3-6374-C.,CA 3-6374-C. |
| Citation | 372 F. Supp. 499 |
| Parties | REX SMITH PROPANE, INC. v. NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
L. E. Creel, III, and John B. Atwood, III, Suzanne K. Perlman, Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff.
Harold Hoffman, Wynne, Jaffe & Tinsley, Dallas, Tex., for defendant.
This is a suit in diversity over a cashier's check payable to Plaintiff in the sum of $16,216.00.
Mr. W. G. Noble, Jr., of Noble Petroleum Company, on September 24, 1971, ordered Defendant Bank to draw a cashier's check in the sum of $16,216.00 payable to Plaintiff and to draw the $16,216.00 from Noble Petroleum Company's account with Defendant. Later that same day, Mr. Noble again called Defendant and spoke to the same officer that he had before, Mr. H. M. Meredith. He informed Mr. Meredith that Noble Petroleum Company was being placed in bankruptcy involuntarily. As the cashier's check had been typed up, signed by Mr. Meredith as Vice-President of Defendant, a debit slip drawn up on Noble Petroleum Company's account, but was still on his desk, Mr. Meredith had a credit slip countering the debit slip prepared and had the cashier's check cancelled. All of this was done the same day. The cashier's check never left the possession of Defendant.
As Plaintiff is a resident of Missouri, and Defendant a resident of Texas and the cashier's check was for over $10,000.00, there is jurisdiction in this Court. Venue is also proper here as it is the residence of Defendant.
Both sides have moved for summary judgment, the operative facts not being in dispute. The question presented is really whether or not Plaintiff had an interest in the cashier's check.
It is elementary that the check in and of itself did not operate as an assignment of funds as the Uniform Commercial Code specifies that it does not, V.T.C.A., Bus. & Comm. Code, § 3.409. Plaintiff has not contended and plead other facts raising any issue as to assignment.
Other than under an assignment theory, Plaintiff's only rights are under the U.C.C. As the case of Sheldon v. Stagg1 said in relation to the old Negotiable Instruments Law, negotiable instruments have no vitality until they are delivered. This is still true under the Uniform Commercial Code.
V.T.C.A., Bus. & Comm. Code, § 3.102(a)(1) says: "`Issue' means the first delivery of an instrument to a holder or remitter." Delivery is defined in § 1.201(14) as voluntary transfer of possessions. "Negotiation is the transfer of an instrument in such form that the transferee becames a holder"—§ 3.202(a). Section 1.201(20) says, "`Holder' means a person who is in possession of a document of title or an instrument or an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Casto v. Martin
...S.E.2d 115 (1940); Burgess v. Sanitary Meat Market, 121 W.Va. 605, 5 S.E.2d 785, 6 S.E.2d 254 (1939).13 Rex Smith Propane, Inc. v. Nat'l Bank of Commerce, 372 F.Supp. 499 (N.D.Tex.1974); City Nat'l Bank v. Morrissey, 97 Conn. 480, 117 A. 493 (1922); 11 Am.Jur.2d Bills and Notes § 278, pp. ...
-
Wales v. Commissioner
...11 Ariz. 141, 89 P. 517 (1907), revd. on other grounds 12 Ariz. 42, 95 P. 121 (1908); see also Rex Smith Propane, Inc. v. National Bank of Commerce, 372 F. Supp. 499 (N.D. Tex. 1974). His mother did not seem to be aware that a note even existed, and the petitioner never claimed that he gave......
-
First Sec. Bank of Bozeman v. Goddard
...Negotiable instruments have no validity until delivered. This is still true under the UCC. Rex Smith Propane, Inc. v. National Bank of Commerce (U.S.D.C. Texas 1974), 372 F.Supp. 499. "A note takes effect from the time of its delivery and not from its date. Until the "When the note and trus......
-
Locks v. North Towne Nat. Bank of Rockford
...Mutual Savings Bank of New Britain v. Transamerica Insurance Co. (1980), 180 Conn. 71, 428 A.2d 333; Rex Smith Propane, Inc. v. National Bank of Commerce (N.D.Tex.1974), 372 F.Supp. 499. Locks neither alleged nor proved physical possession of the cashier's check. Each version of Locks' comp......