Blaine v. Bourne

3 Citing cases

  1. Equitable Trust Co. v. Rochling

    275 U.S. 248 (1927)   Cited 15 times
    In Equitable Trust Co. v. Rochling, 275 U.S. 248, 72 L.ed. 264, 48 S.Ct. 58, it was contended that the words "for account of" in two cashier's checks meant that the bank to whose order the checks were drawn was constituted an agent to collect them.

    Early American federal and state cases follow the English rule. Lee v. Chillicothe Bank, 15 Fed. Cas. 151; Leary v. Blanchard, 48 Me. 269; Blaine v. Bourne, 11 R.I. 119. The words "for account of" held to be restrictive.

  2. Orleck v. Nemtzow

    195 A. 234 (R.I. 1937)

    Having come into possession lawfully of the note indorsed in blank by the plaintiff and having acted throughout in good faith for its benefit, the plaintiff Orleck had the same right to bring this action in his own name as the attorney himself. The defendant argues that the decision of this court in Blaine v. Bourne, 11 R.I. 119, is an authority in his favor on the point that we have just discussed and confronts us in his brief with an alleged quotation from that opinion in support of his claim. The Blaine case is clearly not in point and the language as quoted is not to be found in the opinion.

  3. Winfield Nat'l Bank v. McWilliams

    60 P. 229 (Okla. 1900)   Cited 13 times

    In Sweeney et al. v. Easter, 1 Wall. (U.S.) 166, the endorsement was as follows: "Pay Sweeney R. F. Co., for collection. Sam Harris Sons." Blaine v. Bourne, 11 R.I. 119, is to the same effect. Except that the court further held that an endorsement, "Pay Jay Cook Co., or order, on account of Baline, Gould Short, North East, Pa., Alfred A. Short, Cashier," was a special and not a general endorsement, and that it was sufficient to give notice that Baline, Gould Short retained the property in the bill. Millikin v. Shapleigh, 36 Mo. 596; 88 Am. Dec. 171, merely follows the well established rule, that an endorsement "for collection" gives notice that the endorser is the owner of the bill.