Roberts v. Rider

• Decision Date: 22 June 1934
• Citation: 255 Ky. 266,73 S.W.2d 17
• Parties: ROBERTS v. RIDER.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

73 S.W.2d 17

255 Ky. 266

ROBERTS v. RIDER.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

June 22, 1934

Appeal from Circuit Court, Rockcastle County.

Action by Maude Roberts against Mollie Rider. From a judgment in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff appeals.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded in accordance with opinion.

C. C Williams, of Mt. Vernon, and J. W. Blue, Jr., of Marion, for appellant.

R. B Bird, of Mt. Vernon, and L. L. Walker, of Lancaster, for appellee.

CREAL Commissioner.

On or about June 2, 1928, Mrs. Lou Pennington delivered to Mrs Maude Roberts a check payable to the latter in the name of Mrs. George Roberts signed or purported to have been signed by Mrs. Mollie Rider. The check reads:

"Bank of Mount Vernon.

"Mount Vernon, Ky. June 2, 1928.

"Pay to the order of Mrs. George Roberts $3,000.00 Three thousand dollars.

"Mollie Rider."

The check, except the signature, had been made out by Mrs. Pennington. Mrs. Roberts deposited the check to her account in a bank at Marion, Ky. but when it was forwarded to the bank of Mt. Vernon payment was refused, and the check was returned to the bank at Marion. In the meantime, Mrs. Roberts had checked on the bank at Marion to the extent of the account, and, when the check was returned she was required to and did reimburse the bank. Thereafter Mrs. Roberts instituted this action against Mrs. Rider in the Rockcastle circuit court seeking to recover the amount of the check.

At the close of the evidence, the court sustained a motion for a directed verdict in favor of the defendant, and, from the judgment entered in conformity with such verdict, plaintiff is appealing.

In her original petition appellant alleged that appellee executed and delivered the check to her for value, but, when presented for payment, payment was refused because appellee had not sufficient funds in the bank to pay same. By answer appellee controverted the allegations of the petition.

By a pleading styled "reply and plea of estoppel" and by way of a second amended answer, appellant alleged, in substance, that appellee signed her name to the check and gave it to Mrs. Pennington with authority to fill it out for whatever amount she might desire or see proper, constituting Mrs. Pennington her agent with authority to fill out the check as it was later filled out; that appellee had been in the habit and it was her custom to deliver checks in blank or checks signed by her to Mrs. Pennington and to authorize the latter to fill out such checks for whatever amount she might desire; that the check sued on was delivered to appellant for value after it was completed and appellant had no knowledge, information, or belief that Mrs. Pennington had or was exceeding her authority in making out the check for the amount contained therein, if in fact there was any such limitation placed upon Mrs. Pennington. She further alleged that, at the time the check was drawn or filled out, Mrs. Rider and Mrs. Pennington were engaged in the business of purchasing agents as partners, and it was the custom of appellee to deliver checks in blank to Mrs. Pennington with authority and directions to fill out the checks for such amounts as she might wish or desire; that, after payment was refused by the bank, she demanded payment thereof from Mrs. Rider and the latter on several occasions agreed and promised to pay same, but has failed and refused to pay the check or any part thereof. Appellee entered a general denial to all the material allegations of appellant's pleading.

The facts as disclosed by the evidence are, in substance, that Mrs. Pennington has established an extensive business as purchasing agent, doing shopping for others in the city of Louisville. Mrs. Rider often assisted her in shopping and purchasing articles of merchandise. It also appears that...