State Guaranty Bank of Okeene v. Doerfler
| Decision Date | 03 June 1924 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 13289 |
| Citation | 1924 OK 598,99 Okla. 258,226 P. 1054 |
| Parties | STATE GUARANTY BANK OF OKEENE v. DOERFLER |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Appeal and Error--Review--Questions of Fact--Verdict.
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.
2. Banks and Banking--Proper Payment of Check--Liability.
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.
3. Assignments--Rights of Assignee.
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.
4. Banks and Banking--Checks--Genuineness of Indorsements--Liability.
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.
5. Same--Sufficiency of Instructions.
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.
Error from District Court, Blaine County; Thos. A. Edwards, Judge.
Action by F. S. Doerfler against the State Guaranty Bank of Okeene, Okla. From judgment against the defendant, defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Dyer & Keim, for Plaintiff in error.
Simons, McKnight & Simons, for defendant in error.
¶1 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.
¶2 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.
¶3 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.
¶4 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 sad Dederich, and knew that the said Dederich would cash the same, and that the plaintiff is estopped to claim liability against the defendant bank.
¶5 The plaintiff for reply denied the allegations of new matter in said answer contained.The material issues are the same in both cases.
¶6 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.
¶7 For reversal of the judgment plaintiff in error submits three propositions, in its brief: (1) That the verdict is not supported by the evidence; (2) 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 (3) the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury upon the theory of the defense offered in instructions submitted and requested by the defendant.
¶8 The facts, briefly stated, as disclosed by the record are as follows:
¶9 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.
¶10 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 was made payable to the defendant in error, F. S. Doerfler.
¶11 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, Okla.
¶12 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 in error's condition at the time Dederich called for the delivery to him of the checks in question. The telephone message of Dederich was received by the wife of the defendant in error, and she was directed by the defendant in error to mail to Dederich said checks as requested by him, with instructions to hold them until defendant in error could see him and inspect the coal mine.Thereafter the said checks were cashed by the salesman, Dederich, at the Oklahoma State Bank at Enid, and the money deposited in said bank to the individual credit of Dederich where such sums remained until after such checks had cleared. No stock was ever delivered to any of the parties, and Dederich, it appears, disappeared.At the time such checks were presented to the Oklahoma State Bank by Dederich for payment the checks bore the indorsement of the defendant in error, Doerfler, and were also indorsed by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mercantile Trust Co. v. Roland
...the hands of the original payee." First State Bank of Cheyenne v. Barton, 129 Okla. 67, 263 P. 142.See, also, State Guaranty Bank of Okeene v. Doerfler, 99 Okla. 258, 226 P. 1054; Keyes v. Ponder, 118 Okla. 234, 226 P. 73; Schumann v. Bank of California (Ore.) 233 P. 860."A replevin action ......
-
First Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Vinita v. Kissee
...loan applicant implicitly imposes the duty on bank to keep the contents of the loan application confidential.32 State Guar. Bank v. Doerfler, 99 Okla. 258, 226 P. 1054 (1924); Brown v. Eastman Natl. Bank, 291 P.2d 828 (Okla.1955); Ingram v. Liberty Natl. Bank & Trust Co., 533 P.2d 975 (Okla......
-
Choctaw Grain Co. v. First State Bank of Jet
... ... Fish, 67 Okla. 102, 169 P. 1105; First Nat. Bank of Wichita Falls v. Guaranty State Bank of Marlow, 106 Okla. 85, 233 P. 183, and State Guaranty Bank of Okeene v. Doerfler, 99 ... ...
-
State Guar. Bank of Okeene v. Doerfler
...226 P. 1054 99 Okla. 258, 1924 OK 598 STATE GUARANTY BANK OF OKEENE v. DOERFLER. No. 13289.Supreme Court of OklahomaJune 3, 1924 ... 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 ... ...