Summary
finding that while "the general rule" is that "[a]s against the true owner, a right of property cannot be acquired by means of a forged written instrument relating to such property," an exception to this general rule arises "where the owner by laches, or by culpable, gross negligence, or by remaining silent when he should speak , has induced another, proceeding with reasonable caution, to act with reference to the property, in the belief that the instrument was genuine, or would be so recognized by the owner"
Summary of this case from Rivas v. Shiu M. TsangOpinion
No. 126.
Argued March 4, 7, 1910. Decided April 4, 1910.
As against the true owner, a right of property cannot be acquired by means of a forged written instrument relating to such property, except when the owner has by laches or gross or culpable negligence induced another who proceeds with reasonable care to act in belief that the instrument was genuine or would be so recognized by the owner. Where the owner of property which passes only by written transfer has left it with another who has wilfully forged the name of such owner to a transfer of the property, the person taking it acquires no right thereto merely because the property was left with party committing the forgery. Quare, how far a broker having lawful possession of stock certificates belonging to a customer, the legal title to which has not been transferred to him, may retain the same as security for any debt balance of such customer.
Mr. Constant Southworth, with whom Mr. Louis J. Dolle was on the brief, for appellant:
Fritz was engaged in a gambling transaction with the bankrupts. He has no standing in this court of equity to claim the Carey certificate.
Fritz and the bankrupts are charged with knowledge that their dealings were illegal. See Re A.B. Baxter Co., 152 F. 137; Wood v. Hubbell, 10 N.Y. 479; Irwin v. Williar, 110 U.S. 499, 511; Flagg v. Baldwin, 38 N.J. Eq. 219, 231; Lester v. Buel, 49 Ohio St. 240, 252; Barnard v. Backhaus, 52 Wis. 593. Hence Fritz has no standing in this court of equity. Kahn v. Walton, 46 Ohio St. 195; Higgins v. McCrea, 116 U.S. 671; Loevy v. Kansas City, 168 F. 524; Marden v. Phillips, 4 Am. Bk. Rep. 566; St. Louis R.R. Co. v. Terre Haute R.R., 145 U.S. 393, 407; Thomas v. City of Richmond, 12 Wall. 349; Hanauer v. Doane, 12 Wall. 349.
The Unity Bank is in a far better position than the bankrupts. If the bankrupts could have interposed the defense of illegality, much more can the Unity Bank, which is an innocent purchaser for value. Baxter v. Deneen, 98 Md. 181; Plank v. Jackson, 128 Ind. 424; and see Cont'l Wall Paper Co. v. Voight Sons Co., 212 U.S. 227.
As against an innocent purchaser for value such as the Unity Bank, Fritz has no standing in this court of equity to recover the Carey certificate, because his gambling partners abused his confidence. See Ohio statutes as to gaming, § 6934 a-1; § 1; § 6934 a-2; § 6934 a-4; § 4.
The Ohio statutes as to losses at gaming are in the nature of penal statutes, Paul v. Groene, 4 O.L.R. 632; and of course they will not be recognized or enforced in a Federal court. Perkins v. B. A.R.R. Co., 90 F. 321. The local law, including the Ohio cases, controls. Security Warehousing Co. v. Hand, 206 U.S. 415.
The fact of the illegality of a contract may be raised at any time in a legal proceeding; and the court may do so of its own motion in the absence of objection by the parties. Oscanyan v. Arms Co., 103 U.S. 261; In re Wilde's Sons, 144 F. 972; Loveland's Bankruptcy, 3d ed., 143.
The answer of the Unity Bank is evidence and proves that the disputed signature is genuine and adopted by Fritz.
Bankruptcy proceedings are governed by the rules of equity. Re McIntire, 142 F. 593; Bardes v. Bank, 178 U.S. 524; Dodge v. Nortin, 133 F. 363; Nashville Ry. Co. v. Bum, 168 F. 862; Shook v. Dozier, 168 F. 867; Scott v. McNeely, 140 U.S. 106; Elliott v. Toeppner, 187 U.S. 327; General Orders in Bankruptcy, No. 37; Schwarts v. Siegel, 117 F. 13, 16; In re Rochford, 124 F. 182; In re Cooper Bros., 159 F. 956; Goldman v. Smith, 93 F. 182; Dokken v. Page, 147 F. 438; Barton v. Barbour, 140 U.S. 126; Rouse v. Hornsby, 161 U.S. 588; Mercantile Trust Co. v. Pitts. W. Ry. Co., 115 F. 475; Loveland's Bankruptcy, 3d ed., pp. 34, 88, 458, 459.
Marshalling assets is essentially equitable relief. 2 Pomeroy's Equitable Remedies, § 865 (6 Pomeroy's Eq. Jur., § 865).
The circumstantial evidence in the case shows conclusively that the power of attorney was Fritz's either by actual execution or by adoption. The referee wrongfully placed the burden of proof on the Unity Bank, which materially prejudiced its rights. McNutt Ross v. Kaufman, 26 Ohio St. 127; List Sons Co. v. Chase, 80 Ohio St. 42.
Where a party like Fritz attempts to make his case by proving the commission of crime, as forgery, in a civil case, his testimony must be clear and convincing. United States v. Am. Bell Tel. Co., 167 U.S. 224; Lexington Ins. Co. v. Paver, 16 Ohio 324, 332; approved in Strader v. Mullane, 17 Ohio St. 624; Still v. Wilson, Wright, 505; Sprague v. Dodge, 48 Ill. 142; Lalone v. United States, 164 U.S. 255; Conner v. Groh, 90 Md. 674; Kansas M.O.M. Ins. Co. v. Rammelsberg, 58 Kan. 531.
The bankrupts had the right to rehypothecate the Carey stock to raise money to carry out Fritz's orders. The Unity Bank, therefore, acquired a valid lien to the extent of its advance. Lawrence v. Maxwell, 58 Barb. (N.Y.) 511; 53 N.Y. 19; Whitlock v. Seaboard National Bank, 29 Misc. (N.Y.) 84; and see also Martin v. Megargee, 212 Pa. 558; Horton v. Morgan, 19 N.Y. 170; Caswell v. Putnam, 120 N.Y. 152; Mays v. Knowlton, 134 N.Y. 250; Berlin v. Eddy, 33 Mo. 426; Price v. Gover, 40 Md. 103.
The rehypothecation of the Carey certificate to the Unity Bank gave it in equity all the rights of the bankrupts. Talty v. Freedman's Savings Trust Co., 93 U.S. 321; Belden v. Perkins, 78 Ill. 449; and see also Donald v. Suckling, L.R., 1 Queen's Bench, 585; Reardon v. Patterson, 19 Mont. 231; National Cash Register Co. v. Cerrone, 76 Ohio St. 12.
It is also held that the assignment of the collateral carried with it the debts secured. Lahmers v. Schmidt, 35 Minn. 434; Dintruff v. Crittenden, 1 Thomp. C. (N.Y.) 143; Hawkins v. Oswald, 2 Woodw. Dec. (Pa.) 345.
It makes no difference whether or not Fritz knew of the equitable assignment to the Unity Bank of his debt, or that the equitable assignment was of part only of his debt to the bank. Knickerbocker Trust Co. v. Coyle, 139 F. 792; Exchange Bank v. McLoon, 73 Me. 498, 505; Jones on "Liens," 2d ed., § 43. Fritz's debt to the bankrupts is still unpaid. Fritz was negligent and must bear any loss that may occur. First National Bank of Chicago v. Baird, 141 F. 862; Brown v. Blydenburg, 7 N.Y. 141, approved in Kenochan v. Dunham, 48 Ohio St. 1, 24; Syracuse Savings Bank v. Merrick, 182 N.Y. 387; Hoffmaster v. Black, 78 Ohio St. 1; 4 Cyc. 85, note 13.
Even though Fritz could recover the Carey stock from the bankrupts, he cannot recover it from an innocent transferee, such as the Unity Bank. Fenno v. Sare, 3 Ala. 458; Willis v. Hockaday, 1 Spear (So. Car. Law), 379; Chiles v. Coleman, 2 A.K. Marshall (Ky.), 296 (687); Neuremberger v. Lehenhauer, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1753; Greathouse v. Throckmorton, 7 J.J. Marshall (30 Ky.), 17, 28; Harrod v. Black, 1 Duv. (62 Ky.) 180; Braswell v. Braswell, 109 Ky. 15, 17; Smith v. Kamerer, 152 Pa. 98; Martinez v. Lindsey Gay, 91 Ala. 334; Parsons v. Joseph, 92 Ala. 403; Maue v. Krell Piano Co., 7 O.L.R. 539; Lawler v. Kell, 4 Ohio Nisi Prius, 218; Oliver v. Cincinnati, C. W. Tpk. Co., Hosea, 457, affirmed. And see Combes v. Chandler et al., 33 Ohio St. 178.
Mr. Theodore Horstman for appellee Fritz.
Briefly outlined, the case as disclosed by the above statement is this: The certificate of stock in the Carey Manufacturing Company was placed in the possession of Holzman Co. under an express agreement that it should not go out of their possession, but be held simply for the purpose of showing Fritz's financial responsibility; that Holzman Co. had no authority to pledge the stock with the Unity Banking and Saving Company as security for the payment of their individual note for $10,000 to that institution; that the pledging of the stock with the bank by Holzman Co. was without Fritz's knowledge; that his signature to the blank power of attorney was unauthorized by him and was a forgery; that Fritz did not, by anything said, done or omitted by him, lead the bank to believe that he had executed such power of attorney, or had authorized any one to do so for him; and that he never, in any way, ratified the forgery of his name or approved the pledging of the stock to the Unity Banking and Saving Company for the individual debt of Holzman Co.
In view of these facts — which the Referee as well as the District and Circuit Courts of Appeals correctly held to have been established by the evidence — it would seem unnecessary to cite authorities to show that, as between the bank and Fritz, the bank did not acquire any interest, legal or equitable, in the stock represented by the certificate placed in the possession of Holzman Co. under the circumstances stated. The bank no doubt relied upon the integrity of that firm, and acted in the belief that Fritz had in fact signed the blank power of attorney or authorized it be signed for him. But that belief was not, according to the evidence, superinduced by anything said, done or omitted by Fritz. He was not chargeable with laches or negligence. The bank having elected to rely upon Holzman Co., must stand the consequences. It cannot say that it was misled by Fritz to its prejudice. It could not, therefore, as between itself and Fritz, take anything in virtue of the forgery. As against the true owner, a right of property cannot be acquired by means of a forged written instrument relating to such property. This is the general rule. An exception to the rule arises where the owner by laches, or by culpable, gross negligence, or by remaining silent when he should speak, has induced another, proceeding with reasonable caution, to act with reference to the property, in the belief that the instrument was genuine, or would be so recognized by the owner. In such cases the owner would be equitably estopped to rely upon the fact of forgery, as against the person who was misled by his conduct. There are no facts in this case from which could arise an exception to the general rule.
Nor, in view of the facts, need we follow the example of counsel and enter upon an examination of the cases bearing on the general inquiry as to the circumstances under which a broker who, by the act of the owner, comes into the lawful possession of a stock certificate — but, without the legal title having been transferred to him — may retain the certificate as security for any balance ascertained upon settlement due him on account of dealings for or on behalf of such customer. We say this, because it appears, and it is so found, that at the close of the business transacted by Holzman Co. for Fritz, the latter was a creditor, not a debtor, of that firm.
In any aspect in which the case can be properly viewed, and for the reasons stated, the judgment sustaining Fritz's claim to the stock and certificate in question must be
Affirmed.