United Ry. & Logging Supply Co. v. Siberian Commercial Co.

• Decision Date: 15 October 1921
• Docket Number: 16410.
• Citation: 117 Wash. 347,201 P. 21
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: UNITED RY. & LOGGING SUPPLY CO. v. SIBERIAN COMMERCIAL CO.

201 P. 21

117 Wash. 347

UNITED RY. & LOGGING SUPPLY CO. v. SIBERIAN COMMERCIAL CO.

No. 16410.

Supreme Court of Washington

October 15, 1921

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Boyd J. Tallman, Judge.

Action by the United Railway & Logging Supply Company against the Siberian Commercial Company. From judgment for plaintiff defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

C. H Hanford, of Seattle, for appellant.

Reynolds Ballinger & Hutson and Elmer W. Leader, all of Seattle, for respondent.

MAIN J.

This action was brought to recover upon two written instruments called trade acceptances. The trial resulted in findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a judgment sustaining the right to recover. The defendant appeals. The trade acceptances were drawn on August 1, 1919, and delivered on or about the same date. In attempting to fix the due date in one it is recited: 'On December 1, pay to the order of G. W. Laing.' In the other recital is the same, except that November 1 is mentioned. In neither is the year specified. The acceptances were drawn by one G. W. Laing and were accepted by the appellant. They were subsequently transferred by Laing to the Ballard Lumber Company and from that company to the respondent. The appellant sought to interpose a defense which he would not have a right to make against one holding them in due course as was the respondent, if they are in fact negotiable instruments.

The controlling question then is whether the failure to fill in the year in an attempt to specify the due date renders them nonnegotiable. The respondent takes the position that the omission of the year may be viewed in one of two ways, either the time of payment is certain or that no time of payment is fixed in the instruments and they are therefore payable on demand. According to the Negotiable Instrument Law (section 3398 of Remington's 1915 Code 'an instrument is payable on demand * * * (2) in which no time for payment is expressed.' By section 3443 'a holder in due course is a holder who has taken the instrument under the following conditions: (1) That it is complete and regular upon its face. * * *' Those sections being both embodied in the Negotiable Instrument Law it is necessary to give effect to each. According to the section last quoted, a holder in due course must be one who has taken an instrument which is complete and regular on its face. As above stated in one of the trade acceptances in attempting to fix the due date only December 1 is mentioned, and in the other November 1. In each case there was an attempt to fix a due date, and it was not completed by reason of the fact that the year was omitted. In re Estate of Philpott, 169 Iowa, 555, 151 N.W. 825, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 839, the court had before it a note which provided that it was payable 'on or before 4 . . . after date.' The question there arose, under a similar provision of the statute, whether the note was complete and regular upon its face, and it was held not to be so. There was an apparent attempt to fix a due date, but it was not complete, owing to the fact that it did not specify whether it was payable four days, four months or four years after date. In the course of the opinion it was said:

'This note was not 'complete and regular' upon its face. It indicated upon its face that some word had been omitted in an attempt to specify

...