The Sumiton Bank v. Funding Systems Leasing Corporation

Fifth Circuit

The Sumiton Bank v. Funding Systems Leasing Corporation

512 F.2d 774, 16 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1301, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 14767

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 8, 1975

Docket74-1927

StatusPublished

This text of 512 F.2d 774 (The Sumiton Bank v. Funding Systems Leasing Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The Sumiton Bank v. Funding Systems Leasing Corporation, 512 F.2d 774, 16 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1301, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 14767 (5th Cir. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The bank claims against the drawer of a check deposited with it. The check was order paper. The signature of the payee as purported indorser was forged. Below it was added the signature of another entity, which we will assume was an authorized signature.

The forged signature of the payee was inoperative to make the bank a holder, 1 Code of Ala., Tit. 7A, §§ 1— 201(20); 3-201; 3-202; 3-404 (1966); nor did the presumably valid second signature convert the order paper to bearer paper. See Code of Ala., Tit. 7A, §§ 3— 201; 3-202(1), (2); 3-204(2); 3-404(1); 1-201(20) (1966).

The decision in favor of the drawer is affirmed.

1

. Which makes it unnecessary for us to consider the bank’s claim that it was a holder in due course and therefore took free of defenses of the drawer. See Code of Ala., Tit. 7A, §§ 3-302(1); 1-201(20) (1966).

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

PER CURIAM:

The bank claims against the drawer of a check deposited with it. The check was order paper. The signature of the payee as purported indorser was forged. Below it was added the signature of another entity, which we will assume was an authorized signature.

The forged signature of the payee was inoperative to make the bank a holder, 1 Code of Ala., Tit. 7A, §§ 1— 201(20); 3-201; 3-202; 3-404 (1966); nor did the presumably valid second signature convert the order paper to bearer paper. See Code of Ala., Tit. 7A, §§ 3— 201; 3-202(1), (2); 3-204(2); 3-404(1); 1-201(20) (1966).

The decision in favor of the drawer is affirmed.

1

. Which makes it unnecessary for us to consider the bank’s claim that it was a holder in due course and therefore took free of defenses of the drawer. See Code of Ala., Tit. 7A, §§ 3-302(1); 1-201(20) (1966).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

512 F.2d 774, 16 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1301, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 14767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-sumiton-bank-v-funding-systems-leasing-corporation-ca5-1975.