Schafer v. Olson
Decision Date | 15 March 1912 |
Citation | 139 N.W. 983,24 N.D. 542 |
Parties | SCHAFER v. OLSON |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
OPINION
A rehearing having been allowed herein, the questions involved have been fully and elaborately reargued by counsel. No new light, however, has been furnished us on such reargument, and after mature deliberation we are unable to discover any sound reason why we should change our former views upon either of the points involved; nor do we deem it necessary to add anything to what is said in the former opinion, further than to remark that we are not here confronted with a state of facts such as confronted the Michigan Court in State Bank v. Byrne, 97 Mich. 178, 21 L.R.A. 753, 37 Am. St. Rep. 332, 56 N.W. 355. There the evidence disclosed the insolvency of the bank at the time it received the check. The language in the opinion clearly shows such to be the fact. In the case at bar, however, no such proof was made, and in the absence thereof the presumption is that it was solvent and therefore had funds to pay all checks presented in the usual course of business; it appearing that it was a going concern, engaged in transacting its ordinary banking business by receiving and paying out deposits in the usual course. In the light of these facts, it would be a most extraordinary and unusual rule which would require defendant's agent Baird, on presentation of his check, to require the bank to count out to him the cash on such check and then pass the same back to the bank in payment of the draft.
In addition to the authorities cited in the former opinion, see Sayles v. Cox, 95 Tenn. 579, 32 L.R.A. 715, 49 Am. St. Rep. 940, 32 S.W. 626; State ex rel. North Carolina Corp. Commission v. Merchants' & F. Bank, 137 N.C. 697, 50 S.E. 308, 2 Ann. Cas. 537; Smith Roofing & Contracting Co. v. Mitchell, 117 Ga. 772, 97 Am. St. Rep. 217, 45 S.E. 47; Harrison v. Legore, 109 Iowa 618, 80 N.W. 670; Hare v. Bailey, 73 Minn. 409, 76 N.W. 213; Oddie v. National City Bank, 45 N.Y. 735, 6 Am. Rep. 160; Howard v. Walker, 92 Tenn. 452, 21 S.W. 897; 1 Morse, Banks & Bkg. §§ 248, 305; 3 Randolph, Com. Paper, §§ 1395, 1456; 2 Bolles, Bkg. p. 557.
In Sayles v. Cox, supra, the syllabus is as follows: "Collection by bank in a check upon itself is equivalent to collection in cash, even if the bank failed on the same day."
In State ex rel. North Carolina Corp. Commission v. Merchants' & F. Bank, supra, the facts were that, just prior to the suspension of the Merchants' & Farmers' Bank a milling company forwarded to it for collection a draft in the sum of $ 693, attaching a bill of lading thereto covering a shipment of a carload of flour to the Purdie-Hooks Company, drawee of such draft. On February 8, 1904, the bank delivered the draft and bill of lading to the drawee, accepting therefor a check of such drawee against a deposit in the bank. On the following day, such bank voluntarily closed its doors because of insolvency, and the bank did not account for the proceeds of said collection; and among other things, the court said:
In Smith Roofing & Contracting Co. v. Mitchell, supra, the syllabus is as follows:
In the opinion of said case it was said: "The entry on the books of the Barnesville Savings Bank, charging the account of its depositor with the amount of the check, was the same as if it had paid the money over its counter to itself as agent for the bank which had sent the check for collection; and the fact that it fraudulently withheld the money from that bank and failed to enter the proper credit to its account does not render any less complete the payment by the depositor."
In Harrison v. Legore, supra, the syllabus reads: "Where an agent of a mortgagee accepts a certificate of deposit in payment of a mortgage, and deposits it in the bank which issues it, to the credit of his own account therein, the transaction is equivalent to a payment in cash."
In Hare v. Bailey, supra, one of the questions involved was whether a certain transaction between plaintiff and A. F. and L. E. Kelley, former loan agents at Minneapolis, constituted payment of a note and mortgage owing by the plaintiff to the defendant Bailey. Just prior to the maturity of such note and mortgage, plaintiff procured a loan through the Kelleys from one Dean, in which to make such payment. The Kelleys had Dean's money on deposit in their name in a bank, and they agreed to replace the Bailey loan out of the Dean money thus on deposit in their name, and accordingly took from plaintiff new loan papers payable to Dean. On the execution of the note and mortgage to Dean, the Kelleys charged him on their books with $ 1,100, and credited this sum to defendant Bailey, but they never remitted such money to defendant. It was contended that the transaction by which the Kelleys merely made a transfer of a credit on their books from Dean to defendant, that they did not receive any money as defendant's agents, and plaintiff did not pay them any as such agents; that no money actually passed, and that this matter of mere bookkeeping cannot be held to be a payment of defendant's note and mortgage; and the court, among other things, said:
In Howard v. Walker, supra, we quote from the opinion as follows:
Morse on Banks & Banking, 4th ed. § 248, announces the rule as follows: "Collection by a bank of a debt sent to it for collection in a check upon itself, is equivalent to collection in money, even if the bank failed the same day."
And in § 305 the rule is thus stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial