Security Bank v. Northwestern Fuel Co.

59 N.W. 987, 58 Minn. 141, 1894 Minn. LEXIS 367
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedJuly 10, 1894
DocketNo. 8717
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 59 N.W. 987 (Security Bank v. Northwestern Fuel Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Security Bank v. Northwestern Fuel Co., 59 N.W. 987, 58 Minn. 141, 1894 Minn. LEXIS 367 (Mich. 1894).

Opinion

Mitchell, J.

The defendant gave its check for $418.12 on the Bank of Minneapolis, payable to the order of the Mill Wood Company, which was a customer of, and had a deposit account with, the plaintiff, on which it was accustomed to deposit cash and checks, which were credited to its account, and against which it was authorized to draw its checks. On the same day on which the Mill Wood Company received the check it indorsed it, “For deposit in the Security Bank to the credit of the Mill Wood Company,” and deposited it, with other checks, with the plaintiff, receiving a deposit slip, and being credited with the amount on its deposit account. Immediately preceding this deposit the Mill Wood Company's account was overdrawn, but, after making this deposit, and another, made the same day, there was a balance to its credit of $876.30, including the credit for the check in question. The next morning it drew checks against its account, which were paid, which overdrew its account $363.72, and this overdraft has never been paid. Subsequently, on [144]*144the same day, the check was duly presented for payment to the Bank of Minneapolis, but was dishonored, for the reason that the defendant had forbidden its payment. Immediately afterwards the Mill Wood Company became, and still remains, insolvent. This is a suit on the check. The only question is whether the title to the check had passed to the plaintiff. We think it had. The indorsement of the Mill Wood Company was sufficient, and was not restrictive or qualified.

Where a customer has a deposit account with a bank, on which he is accustomed to deposit checks payable to himself, which are credited to him on his account, and against which he is authorized to draw, an indorsement “For deposit” is, in the absence of a different understanding, a request and direction to deposit the sum to the credit of the customer, and passes the absolute title to the •check to the bank. Commercial Bank v. Miller, 77 Ala. 168; First Nat. Bank v. Smith, 132 Mass. 227.

Upon a deposit being made by a customer in a bank, in the ordinary course of business, of money, checks, 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 to the depositor for the amount, unless a different understanding affirmatively appears. In re State Bank, 56 Minn. 119, (57 N. W. 336.) There is nothing in this case indicating .any different understanding.

Order affirmed.

Buck and Collins, JJ., absent.

(Opinion published 59 N. W. 987.)

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

Related

Rubio Savings Bank v. Acme Farm Products Co.
37 N.W.2d 16 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1949)
W. A. White Brokerage Co. v. Cooperman
290 N.W. 790 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1940)
Adams County v. Meadows Valley Bank
277 P. 575 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1929)
State v. Johnson
211 N.W. 334 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1926)
Hjelle v. Veigel
210 N.W. 891 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1926)
Sisseton Live Stock Shipping Ass'n v. Drovers State Bank
205 N.W. 447 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1925)
Weed v. Boston & Maine Railroad
128 A. 696 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1925)
Semingson v. Stock Yards National Bank
203 N.W. 412 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1925)
Acme Hay & Mill Feed Co. v. Metropolitan National Bank
198 Iowa 1337 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1924)
St. Paul State Bank v. Rippe Grain & Milling Co.
199 N.W. 519 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1924)
Alleman v. Sayre
91 S.E. 805 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1917)
Chapman v. Mills & Gibb
241 F. 715 (S.D. New York, 1917)
Stein v. Kemp
155 N.W. 1052 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1916)
King v. Carroll-Porter Boiler & Tank Co.
77 N.W. 409 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1898)
National Bank of America v. National Bank
45 N.E. 968 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1897)
Rock Springs National Bank v. Luman
42 P. 874 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1895)
Irwin v. McKechnie
26 L.R.A. 218 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1894)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 N.W. 987, 58 Minn. 141, 1894 Minn. LEXIS 367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/security-bank-v-northwestern-fuel-co-minn-1894.