Depositors Holding Co. v. Ashley State Bank

232 N.W. 602, 60 N.D. 75, 1930 N.D. LEXIS 210
CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1930
StatusPublished

This text of 232 N.W. 602 (Depositors Holding Co. v. Ashley State Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Depositors Holding Co. v. Ashley State Bank, 232 N.W. 602, 60 N.D. 75, 1930 N.D. LEXIS 210 (N.D. 1930).

Opinion

Swenson, Dist. J.

This action was brought by the plaintiff, the Depositors Holding Company, a corporation, against the Ashley State Bank, a banking corporation, to recover on three sight drafts, aggregating $1,693.95, drawn by the Ashley State Bank, defendant, in its own favor, upon the First State Bank of Wishek, and one check for the sum of $122.34, drawn by the Bankers Loan Company on the First State Bank of Wishelc,’ North Dakota, payable to the order of the defendant.

The three sight drafts and the check involved in this action were forwarded on the 11th day of October, 1926, by the defendant to the City National Bank of Bismarck, North Dakota, for collection and credit. At the time said items were forwarded, and for a number of years prior thereto, the City National Bank of Bismarck, and the 'Ashley State Bank, defendant herein, were correspondent banks. It was the custom and usage existing for a number of years between these two banks, for the City National Bank to credit all outside items sent to it by the Ashley State Bank, conditional upon payment thereof, and all items not paid were charged back to the Ashley State Bank. These items were endorsed unrestrictedly and forwarded by the defendant to the City National Bank by mail, and on October 12, 1926, the City National Bank credited these items, together with a number of others, to the account of the defendant, and forwarded to the defendant an instrument known as Advice of Credit, wherein it is stated, “Outside items and sight drafts credited subject to payment.”

On the 13th day of October, 1926, the City National Bank of Bismarck forwarded the drafts and the check, together with other items, *77 to the Security State Bank of Wishek; said drafts and checks were presented to the State Bank of Wishek for payment by the Security State Bank of Wishek on the 15th day of October, 1926, and payment was refused, and said drafts and check were then returned to the City National Bank of Bismarck, or its receiver.

On the 13th day of October, 1926, the City National Bank of Bismarck closed its doors, and a receiver was appointed. After the City National Bank had closed its doors and before the said items were presented to the First State Bank of Wishek, the Ashley State Bank had notified and requested the First State Bank of Wishek not to pay said items. After the return of said drafts and check the City National Bank of Bismarck notified the defendant of the non-acceptance and non-payment of the same, and demanded payment from the defendant, which demand was refused. The items involved in this action were not charged back to the Ashley State Bank, but the receiver of the City National Bank assigned and transferred the said drafts and checks to the plaintiff, the Depositors Holding Company. The plaintiff afterwards demanded payment from the defendant of said drafts and said check, which demand was refused, whereupon the plaintiff brought this action to recover the amount of said drafts and check upon the theory that the City National Bank was the owner of said drafts and said check, and that by reason of the City National Bank having given defendant credit for said items, the relation of debtor and creditor existed between the defendant and the City National Bank, and the absolute title to the said drafts and check had passed to the City National Bank. The credit balance of the Ashley State Bank with the City National Bank at the time the bank closed and at the time the items were returned, was in excess of the total of said items.

This ease was tried before the lower court without a jury, and findings of fact and conclusions of law were made by the judge in favor of the defendant dismissing said action. From said judgment plaintiff has taken an appeal.

When a check or other commercial paper is deposited in a bank, endorsed for collection, there is no question that the title to the paper remains in the depositor and the bank merely acts as agent of the depositor for the purpose of collection. 3 R. C. L. p. 524.

*78 The plaintiff contends that inasmuch as the drafts and the check forwarded to the City National Bank for collection and credit, were endorsed unrestrictedly, and the City National Bank immediately gave the defendant credit for the same upon its books, the City National Bank became the purchaser of said drafts and check; that the relation of debtor and creditor was thereby established between the City National Bank and the defendant, and that the City National Bank became the absolute owner of the items involved.

The decisions of the different courts upon this question are not harmonious. The lack of uniformity, however, is more apparent than real. Each case must be judged by its own particular facts. This court in the case of State ex rel. Stensby v. McClelland, 58 N. D. 365, 226 N. W. 540, approved the rule that “The positive authority of a decision is coextensive only with the facts on which it is made.”

In the case of Re State Bank, 56 Minn. 119, 45 Am. St. Rep. 454, 57 N. W. 336, the facts were very much the same as in the case at bar. The court, speaking through Judge Mitchell, uses the following language :

“It might, at first sight, strike many that the facts that the indorsements of the petitioners were unrestricted, and that the amount of the drafts was placed to their credit, with a privilege of drawing against it by check, would be conclusive that the drafts immediately became the property of the bank; but we are satisfied that upon both principle and authority there is no hard and fast rule on the subject. There is no question but that the general rule is that, upon a deposit being made by a customer in a bank, in the ordinary course of business, of money drafts or other negotiable paper, received and credited as money, the title of the money drafts or other paper immediately becomes the property of the bank; which becomes debtor of the depositor for the amount; and, if no other facts appeared except these, they would be held to conclusively show an intention of the parties that the paper should immediately become the property of the bank. But, after all, the question is one of the agreement of the parties, either express or implied, from the general course of business between them. There can be-no doubt that if a draft or other paper is delivered to a bank for collection, the mere fact that the indorsement of the owner is unrestricted, will not, as between him and the bank, make the latter the *79 owner of the property. Neither is it conclusive upon the question of ownership of the paper that before collection the amount of it is credited to the customer’s account, against which he has the privilege of drawing by check. It has been frequently held, with the approval of the best text writers, that if paper is delivered by a customer to a bank for collection, or ‘for collection and credit,’ a credit of the amount to the customer before, and in anticipation of collection, will be deemed merely provisional, and the privilege of drawing against it merely gratuitous, and that the bank may cancel the credit, or charge back the paper to the customer’s account, if it is not paid by the maker or drawee. . . . The right of banks to do this in case of the deposit of checks on other banks, without any special contract-, is generally exercised and recognized.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Burton v. United States
196 U.S. 283 (Supreme Court, 1905)
City of Douglas v. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
271 U.S. 489 (Supreme Court, 1926)
Midwest National Bank & Trust Co. v. Parker Corn Co.
245 S.W. 217 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1922)
Armour Packing Co. v. Davis
24 S.E. 365 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1896)
Clancy v. First State Bank
215 N.W. 779 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1927)
First Nat. Bank v. Wells County
209 N.W. 962 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1926)
State Ex Rel. Stensby Ex Rel. Stensby v. McClelland
226 N.W. 540 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1929)
Morris-Miller Co. v. Von Pressentin
114 P. 912 (Washington Supreme Court, 1911)
In re State Bank
57 N.W. 336 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1894)
South Park Foundry & Machine Co. v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co.
77 N.W. 796 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1899)
Beal v. City of Somerville
50 F. 647 (First Circuit, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
232 N.W. 602, 60 N.D. 75, 1930 N.D. LEXIS 210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/depositors-holding-co-v-ashley-state-bank-nd-1930.