Valentine v. Andrew
Decision Date | 15 March 1927 |
Docket Number | 37598 |
Citation | 212 N.W. 674,203 Iowa 463 |
Parties | RICHARD VALENTINE, Appellant, v. L. A. ANDREW, Receiver, Appellee |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Cerro Gordo District Court.--C. H. KELLEY, Judge.
This is a claim for preference in a bank receivership, which the district court denied. Claimant appeals.
Affirmed.
Smith & Feeney, for appellant.
Blythe Markley, Rule & Clough, for appellee.
MORLING J. EVANS, C. J., DE GRAFF and ALBERT, JJ., concur.
On November 10, 1924, claimant left for collection with the City Commercial Savings Bank of Mason City, without special instructions, notes and mortgage made by Christians for $ 10,000, besides accumulated interest. The bank was given no authority to retain the proceeds on deposit. On April 16, 1925, the bank wrote to the claimant, who was then in California, that it had collected the mortgage, in the amount of $ 10,955.60. The letter stated:
The certificates inclosed were dated April 16, 1925, and each (except as to amount) read:
"
On April 20, 1925, claimant wrote the bank:
Claimant testified that he took the certificate for $ 3,455.60 to the First National Bank of Los Angeles, and deposited it on or about April 20, 1925. The other three certificates he deposited with the First National Bank of Los Angeles on the 4th or 5th day of May, 1925. His account for the three $ 2,500 certificates was credited with the amount of them by the First National Bank of Los Angeles. The first mentioned certificate was forwarded by the First National Bank of Los Angeles, through the clearings, and paid, without interest, on April 29, 1925. All four were indorsed in blank by claimant, and also bore the several special indorsements of the First National Bank of Los Angeles, California, the Continental & Commercial National Bank of Chicago, and the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, to "pay to the order of any bank or banker, prior endorsements guaranteed." None of the indorsements is stated to be for collection. The City Commercial Bank did not open for business May 11, 1925, or afterward, and the three $ 2,500 certificates which were forwarded by the Federal Reserve Bank to the City Commercial Bank May 11th were not paid. Over proper objections made by the receiver, the claimant testified:
The bank's vice president testified that he simply took that method of making the remittance, thinking that claimant might be induced to leave the money there, and might be able to use them in that form; that it was just their way of remitting.
The funds realized from the collection were held by the bank as claimant's agent. Instead of forwarding the funds, which as agent, it was the bank's duty to do, it evidently mingled them with its own money, with the thought of inducing claimant to leave them on deposit, and thereby establish the relationship of bank and depositor. To this end, the bank forwarded to claimant the four certificates, thereby tendering to claimant for its money in the bank's possession the relationship of depositor at interest. The claimant might have rejected this proposal, but he did not. He acknowledged receipt of the certificates, and stated that he would have preferred drafts, but that he could cash the certificate there at Los Angeles. It may be observed that his statement that he "could cash it here" carries the implication of more or less...
To continue reading
Request your trial