Tradesmen's State Bank v. Ft. Worth Elevators Co.
| Decision Date | 26 April 1919 |
| Docket Number | (No. 9092.) |
| Citation | 214 S.W. 656 |
| Parties | TRADESMEN'S STATE BANK v. FT. WORTH ELEVATORS CO. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Tarrant County; R. E. L. Ray, Judge.
Suit by the Ft. Worth Elevators Company against the Tradesmen's State Bank. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed, and judgment rendered for defendant.
Wm. J. Berne, of Ft. Worth, for appellant.
B. K. Isaacs and Wade, Smith & Blow, all of Ft. Worth, for appellee.
On the date named H. L. Tankersley, a cotton broker at Hunnewell, Kan., doing business under the name of H. L. Tankersley & Co., deposited with the State Guaranty Bank of Blackwell, Okl., the following draft:
Attached to this draft was a bill of lading purporting to have been issued by the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad Company at Hunnewell December 30, 1916, covering 71,000 pounds of bulk wheat consigned to the order of H. L. Tankersley, destination Galveston (for export), notify the Galveston Wharf Company at Galveston, state of Texas, car initial A., T. & S. F. car No. 30257. This purported bill of lading had the name of H. N. Stannard signed thereto as the agent of the railway company. H. N. Stannard was the agent of the A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. at Hunnewell, but did not sign his name to said purported bill of lading, nor did any one else acting for said railway company sign the same, and it was admitted that said signature was a forgery. The State Guaranty Bank of Blackwell, Okl., had a checking account with Tankersley, and upon the deposit of said draft and bill of lading with said bank, and upon the indorsement of the draft by Tankersley, by signing "H. L. Tankersley" on the back thereof, Tankersley's account was credited with the amount of the draft, $1,890. Credit was given on January 2, 1917, which was the first business day following the deposit of the draft. The draft and bill of lading attached was sent by the State Guaranty Bank to the Tradesmen's State Bank of Oklahoma City, and by the latter bank forwarded to the Stockyards National Bank of Ft. Worth, to be collected and credited in the usual way. At the time the State Guaranty Bank had to its credit funds in the Tradesmen's State Bank sufficient to cover any deficit that might be created by reason of the draft in question not being paid, and in accordance with its custom in such transactions the Tradesmen's State Bank gave the Guaranty Bank credit for the amount of the draft, and when the Tradesmen's State Bank forwarded the draft to the Stockyards National Bank, the latter named bank was charged with the amount of said item. Upon receipt of the draft and bill of lading from the State Guaranty Bank, the appellant bank acknowledged its receipt in the following communication:
On January 3, 1917, said draft was paid by the Ft. Worth Elevators Company, and remittance to cover was made by the Stockyards National Bank to the Tradesmen's State Bank, and by the latter to the State Guaranty Bank. On the back of the draft when presented to the Ft. Worth Elevators Company there were the following indorsements:
(1)
(2) "Pay to any bank or banker, all previous indorsements guaranteed.
"86-152 Dec. 30, 1916. 86-152.
"The State Guaranty Bank,
"Blackwell, Oklahoma."
(3) "Pay any bank or banker, all previous indorsements guaranteed.
"39-15. Jan. 2, 1917. 39-15.
"Tradesmen's State Bank,
"Oklahoma City, Okla."
(4) "Received payment through Ft. Worth Clearing House.
"No. Jan. 3, 1917. 12.
"Stockyards National Bank,
"Ft. Worth, Texas."
On the back of the bill of lading was the same indorsement of appellant bank as that placed on the back of the draft; the bank's indorsement on the bill of lading being made by mistake of one of its employés. There was also indorsed the name "H. L. Tankersley," written by Tankersley himself.
Jule G. Smith, president of the Ft. Worth Elevators Company, testified that in paying the draft he was under the belief that the bill of lading attached represented a car of wheat; that this belief was based upon the signature of the agent, the indorsement of the shipper, and its coming through the bank, and that on the strength of the indorsements he paid the draft; that the Ft. Worth Elevators Company had no contract with H. L. Tankersley or H. L. Tankersley & Co. for the payment of this draft; that it had bought no wheat from Tankersley for which this bill of lading had been issued, and had no funds in its hands at the time belonging to Tankersley or Tankersley & Co. with which to meet the payment of the draft sued upon; that, acting for the Ft. Worth Elevators Company, he purchased the draft, believing that it covered a car of wheat, and that it had been regularly issued and properly indorsed by the bank and the shipper; that, if the bill of lading attached to the draft had not contained the indorsement of the Tradesmen's State Bank, said draft would not have been paid; that the first intimation that he had that there was anything wrong with this draft or bill of lading was about February 15, 1917. Upon failure to locate the car of wheat, and upon information that it had not reached Galveston and could not be found, he wired the railway agent at Hunnewell, and later went to Hunnewell, Kan., and Blackwell, Okl., and made a personal investigation, and found that the bill of lading was a forgery.
The evidence further shows that H. L. Tankersley in March, 1913, opened an account with the State Guaranty Bank, and continued to do business with that bank under that name until his disappearance in February, 1917; that on April 14, 1917, Tankersley's account was closed by the bank's depositing $424.69 to the credit of Tankersley, to cover an overdraft, and charging the same up to loss. Plaintiff has never been reimbursed for any part of the amount paid for the draft and has never received any shipment of wheat described in the bill of lading.
On February 27, 1917, plaintiff filed suit against the Tradesmen's State Bank on said draft, alleging the issuance of the draft and bill of lading and indorsements thereon by defendant, and alleging that the bill of lading was a forgery and its issuance unauthorized by the railway company, and that the defendant, by reason of the premises, was chargeable with notice, when said draft was presented to the plaintiff, that the same was drawn to cover the value of the purported shipment of wheat, as mentioned in said draft and bill of lading, and that in paying for the same plaintiff was using its own funds, and was acting under the belief that it was purchasing a car of wheat of the value of $1,890. Defendant denied that it acted otherwise in the transactions than as a medium of collection for the State Guaranty Bank of Blackwell, and further alleged that when plaintiff paid the amount of the draft it did so with notice that defendant was not the owner of the draft, but held same merely for collection. Defendant further alleged that the amount it had received in payment of the draft had been by it forwarded to the Guaranty State Bank. Jurisdiction was obtained over the defendant by the garnishment of funds belonging to it in the hands of the Stockyards National Bank of Ft. Worth.
The cause was tried before the court without a jury, and judgment was rendered for plaintiff for the amount claimed, together with interest and the costs of suit, from which judgment the defendant has appealed. The court filed his findings of fact and conclusions of law; the facts found being in the main as heretofore stated. He found that when the plaintiff paid the defendant the amount of the draft it did so under the belief that the bill of lading was in all respects regular and genuine and that it was purchasing from the defendant the contents of the car "A T 30257," and that the car so described in the bill of lading and the one described in the draft as "A T & S F car No. 30257" were meant to be one and the same; that plaintiff acted with diligence in notifying the defendant of the forgery of the bill of lading as soon as knowledge thereof came to the plaintiff.
We believe it will be in the interest of time for us to state briefly what we understand to be the theories of the case advanced by the plaintiff and by the defendant below. Plaintiff's contention is that at the time it paid the draft, by reason of the indorsements thereon and the indorsement on the bill of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Behringer v. City Nat. Bank
...these facts, such indorsements were restrictive, and neither bank was liable for the face of the check. Tradesmen's State Bank v. Ft. Worth Elevators Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 214 S. W. 656; Gregory v. Sturgis National Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 71 S. W. 66. Since appellant had not sold the check to ......
-
Cook & Arrington v. Citizens' State Bank
...(Tex. Civ. App.) 163 S. W. 651; Provident Nat. Bank v. Cairo Flour Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 226 S. W. 499; Tradesmen's State Bank v. Fort Worth Elevators Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 214 S. W. 656; Burton v. United States, 25 S. Ct. 243, 196 U. S. 283, 49 L. Ed. 482; 7 Corpus Juris, p. 635; 3 R. C. L. ......
- Ft. Worth Elevator Co. v. State Guaranty Bank of Blackwell
-
Ft. Worth Elevator Co. v. State Guaranty Bank
...that draft was instituted in Texas and reached the Civil Court of Appeals and was decided by that court in May, 1919, and reported in 214 S.W. 656. The court in that case held the bank not liable. It is insisted that that case is not a precedent for the case at bar, for the reason that the ......