Banking Co. v. R. R

Full title: THE MADDOX-RUKER BANKING COMPANY v. THE ATLANTIC NORTH CAROLINA R. R

Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Sep 1, 1892

15 S.E. 936 (N.C. 1892)

111 N.C. 122

Opinion

(September Term, 1892.)

Agency — Draft — Evidence.

1. A draft, with a bill of lading attached, with the indorsements thereon, having been introduced without objection, it was error to exclude evidence that they came to the collecting bank in the usual course of business, unless the letter to the bank, containing them, was proved to be in the handwriting of the then owners.

2. Where a bank receives, in the usual course of business, a draft for collection, its possession is prima facie evidence that the person for whom the bank received it is the owner, the bank being a trustee or agent in that respect.

APPEAL at May Term, 1892, of CRAVEN, from Winston, J.

W. D. McIver for plaintiff. (123)

W. W. Clark for defendant.

CLARK, J.

The draft assigned by A. A. DeLoach, President, with bill of lading attached, was in evidence without objection, as was also the testimony that "the handwriting purporting to be the signature of A. A. DeLoach on both draft and bill of lading, was the same handwriting as the signature to his evidence in the deposition taken in this action." This deposition was also in evidence without objection. It was therefore error to exclude the evidence offered "that the draft and bill of lading came to the bank in New Bern in the course of business in a letter purporting to be sent by the payees," because of the absence of proof that it was in the handwriting of the plaintiff. The evidence already admitted as to the genuineness of the signature of A. A. DeLoach on the draft and to the assignment of the bill of lading, was sufficient to go to the jury, and it is immaterial who sent to the bank the letter enclosing them, whether the plaintiff or someone else. If the letter came in the course of business, with the draft and bill of lading duly assigned to the plaintiff by A. A. DeLoach, with (124) instructions to hold the same for the plaintiffs, the possession of the papers by the bank was prima facie a possession of them as trustee or agent for the plaintiffs, and there would be a presumption that the plaintiffs were the owners of the draft and bill of lading. This evidence was offered to show ownership in the plaintiffs. In its exclusion there was.

ERROR.

Cited: Maddox v. R. R., 115 N.C. 644.