State Guar. Bank of Okeene v. Doerfler
| Decision Date | 03 June 1924 |
| Docket Number | 13289. |
| Citation | 226 P. 1054,99 Okla. 258,1924 OK 598 |
| Parties | STATE GUARANTY BANK OF OKEENE v. DOERFLER. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The verdict of a jury on disputed questions of fact in an action at law and the judgment of the court thereon will not be disturbed on appeal, where there is evidence reasonably tending to support the same.
The relation between the bank and depositor is that of a debtor and creditor. When a depositor issues a check upon his bank payable to payee or order, it is the duty of the bank to pay same to the person named in said check or upon his genuine indorsement, and failure to do so is at the peril of the bank.
An assignee acquires as against the debtor all rights to which the assignor was entitled against him at the time the assignment became effective as to the debtor; that is, from the time of notice to the debtor of the assignment.
Where a check is presented to a bank bearing the indorsement of a depositor, the law places upon the bank the duty to see that such indorsement is genuine, and a failure to do so is at the peril of the bank.
Instructions examined, and held applicable to the case. It is not error for the court to refuse to give a requested instruction which states a correct principle of law but which has no application to the facts involved or the proof.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 5.
Appeal from District Court, Blaine County; Thos. A. Edwards, Judge.
Action by F. S. Doerfler against the State Guaranty Bank of Okeene. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Dyer & Keim, of Enid, for plaintiff in error.
Simons McKnight & Simons, of Enid, for defendant in error.
This cause and a companion case pending in the district court of Blaine county were tried together, and by stipulation of counsel the evidence submitted in the instant case was considered the evidence in each of said cases.
In both cases the defendant in error, F. S. Doerfler, was plaintiff the plaintiff in error, State Guaranty Bank of Okeene, being the defendant in one of the cases, and the National Bank of Okeene being defendant in the other, in the trial court.
In the instant case the plaintiff, F. S. Doerfler, sued the defendant, State Guaranty Bank of Okeene, and alleged that one H. B. Converse, a depositor in said bank, delivered to plaintiff a check in the sum of $250, to be held in escrow upon certain conditions, and that thereafter the said plaintiff delivered said check to one R. M. Dederich, to be held by said Dederich until the performance of said conditions, and that the said Dederich or some other person to plaintiff unknown forged the name of the plaintiff thereon as indorser, and that the defendant bank wrongfully paid said check upon said forged indorsement, and that the plaintiff thereafter paid the said Converse the full amount of the said check and took an assignment of the claim of the said Converse; that demand for payment has been made upon said bank and payment refused.
The defendant for its answer denied the allegations of the petition of the plaintiff, and for further answer alleged that the said plaintiff was negligent in delivering the said checks to the said Dederich, and knew that the said Dederich would cash the same, and that the plaintiff is estopped to claim liability against the defendant bank.
The plaintiff for reply denied the allegations of new matter in said answer contained. The material issues are the same in both cases.
The instant case was tried to a jury, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $250, with interest at 6 per cent. per annum from December 10, 1918, and for costs of the action, and judgment was rendered by the court in accordance with said verdict. Motion for new trial was overruled, and the case comes regularly on appeal to this court.
For reversal of the judgment plaintiff in error submits three propositions in its brief: First, that the verdict is not supported by the evidence; second, that the bank is not liable to the assignee of its depositor for the payment of the check of the depositor upon the forged indorsement of the payee; and, third, the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury upon the theory of the defense offered in instructions submitted and requested by the defendant.
The facts briefly stated, as disclosed by the record, are as follows:
One R M. Dederich, who was a stock salesman for a certain coal mining corporation, called upon various persons residing in and about the town of Okeene for the purpose of selling such persons stock in said coal mining company. The said Dederich accompanied by the defendant in error, F. S. Doerfler, called upon one Gruber and Converse, who were farmers living near the town of Okeene, and attempted to sell them certain stock in said coal mining company.
It appears that an arrangement and agreement had been entered into between the stock salesman, Dederich, and defendant in error, Doerfler, whereby the defendant in error, Doerfler, for his services in assisting in the sale of the stock should receive a commission of 20 per cent. on every sale made. Under this agreement the defendant in error, Doerfler, and the salesman, Dederich, sold to the said Gruber and Converse certain stock in said coal mining company under the following conditions: That Gruber and Converse would deliver to the defendant in error, Doerfler, their personal checks in the sums of $175 and $250, respectively, the check of Gruber being drawn upon his personal account in the National Bank of Okeene, and the check of Converse being drawn upon his personal account in the State Guaranty Bank of Okeene. Each of said checks were made payable to the defendant in error, F. S. Doerfler.
The said checks were delivered by the said Gruber and Converse to Doerfler, under instructions that the defendant in error should hold said checks until he, Doerfler, had inspected the properties of the coal company, and, if the said Doerfler was satisfied upon inspection of the properties of said coal company such checks in that event only were to be delivered to the stock salesman, Dederich. Within a short time after this arrangement and agreement was made, and after the checks had been delivered to the defendant in error, and before the defendant in error had inspected the properties of the said coal mining company as agreed, the said salesman, Dederich, called over the telephone and talked to the defendant in error, through his wife, and requested that the checks held by the defendant in error be sent to the salesman, Dederich, at Enid, Okl.
It appears that the defendant in error, on the day following the receiving of the checks from Gruber and Converse, was taken sick and confined to his bed, and thereby was unable to inspect the property as provided in the agreement. This was the defendant's in error condition at the time Dederich called for the delivery...
To continue reading
Request your trial