Wood v. Boylston Nat'l Bank

• Decision Date: 10 September 1880
• Citation: 129 Mass. 358
• Parties: John F. Wood v. Boylston National Bank
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

129 Mass. 358

John F. Wood v. Boylston National Bank

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

September 10, 1880

Suffolk. Contract for money had and received, to recover the amount collected upon a promissory note, dated August 7 1874, signed by F. Guss, payable in nine months after date to the order of A. B. Savage & Co., and by them indorsed. The case was submitted to the Superior Court, and, after judgment for the plaintiff, to this court on appeal, upon agreed facts, which appear in the opinion.

Judgment for the defendant.

F. W Griffin, for the plaintiff.

H. G. Allen (N. Morse with him,) for the defendant.

Colt, J. Endicott & Soule, JJ., absent.

OPINION

Colt, J.

The plaintiff was the owner of the note, the avails of which he seeks to recover in this action. It was a negotiable note, indorsed in blank by the payee. Before it fell due, the plaintiff delivered it to Abraham Jackson, an attorney at law, for collection, and he deposited it, without his own indorsement, in the defendant bank, where he kept an account, for collection. At the time the note was left with the bank, and at the time of its maturity and payment, Jackson was owing the bank, for advances and otherwise, more than the amount of the note. Nothing was said when it was deposited, or before its payment, as to Jackson's title or relation to the note, and no advance of money was made to him on account thereof.

The bank credited Jackson's account with the amount of it when paid, on May 12, 1875, and applied the balance of his account to the payment of his debts to the bank. He was afterwards, on June 4, 1875, adjudicated a bankrupt; and the bank, on September 30, 1876, made a settlement with his assignees, crediting the amount of this note, and receiving but a part of the whole claim. The plaintiff, on September 20, 1877, as soon as he knew that the bank had received the proceeds of the note, made a demand upon the bank for the amount collected.

It is contended that there is nothing, on these facts, which shows that Jackson actually pledged, or intended to pledge, this note as security for his debt to the bank, or do more than give it to the bank to collect as agent for the plaintiff. But the effect of the transaction, as between Jackson and the bank, is to be determined by the application of well-settled legal principles. Jackson was the ostensible owner of the note. He delivered it to the bank in the usual course of business, with no notice expressed, or to be implied from the circumstances, that it was sent for collection only, or that any one else had any interest in it. No instructions as to the application of the proceeds were given. He knew that, in the regular course of business, it would be credited to his general account, to be availed...