SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA,

114 So . Rep. 188 .

9UDLEY

VS

PHENIX-GIRARD BANK

O ci d a

SDPY Xf6092

Under an Alabama s t a t u t e , a u t h o r i z i n g a t a n k r e c e i v i n g n e g o t i a b l e i n s t r u m e n t s f o r c o l l e c t i o n t o f o r w a r d them d i r e c t l y t o t h e drawee b a n k , a bank r e c e i v i n g checks on an ou t of town bank f o r c o l l e c t i o n and f o r w a r d i n g them d i r e c t t o t h e drawee i s n o t g u i l t y of n e g l i g e n c e .

Under t h e r u l e f o l l o w e d i n Alabama a bank r e c e i v i n g p a p e r f o r c o l l e c t i o n i s r e q u i r e d to s e l e c t a s u i t a b l e a g e n t t o whom t o e n t r u s t t he c o l l e c t i o n and to e x e r c i s e c a r e and d i l i g e n c e i n do ing s o , and when t h e bank doos t h i s i t i s n o t l i a b l e fox n e g l i g e n c e of t h e a g e n t s e l e c t e d i n making t h e c o l l e c t i o n .

A c t i o n b y H. R. Dudley a g a i n s t t he Phen ix -Gr i r a rd Bank.

From a judgment f o r d e f e n d a n t , p l a i n t i f f a p p e a l s . A f f i r m e d .

B. de G. Wadde l l , o f S e a l e , and H i l l , H i l l , W h i t i n g ,

Thomas & R i v e s , of Montgomery, f o r a p p e l l a n t .

Benson & Benson, of O p e l i k a , and S t e i n e r , Crum & W e i l ,

o f Montgomery, f o r a p p e l l e e .

SAYRE, J . On November 16 , 1923, a p p e l l a n t d e p o s i t e d

w i t h a p p e l l e e bank f o r c o l l e c t i o n t h e check of Ande r son , Benton

& Co. drawn on t h e F i r s t N a t i o n a l Bank of S e a l e f o r t h e sum of

$ 1 , 9 1 8 . 7 8 , and h i s p e r s o n a l check on the f i r s t N a t i o n a l Bank of

S e a l e , p a y a b l e t o a p p e l l e e , f o r t h e sum of $ 6 8 6 . 6 4 . On December 3 ,

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

> 2 - X-6092

1923 , a n a t i o n a l "bank examiner took charge of the bank of S e a l e

and i t s d o o r s were c l o s e d , a p p e l l a n t ' s checks r e m a i n i n g u n p a i d .

A p p e l l a n t d e c l a r e d i n a number of coun t s t h e common c o u n t s and

o t h e r s c h a r g i n g i n t h e s p e c i a l coun ts t h a t a p p e l l e e f a i l e d t o

e x e r c i s e due d i l i g e n c e i n p r e s e n t i n g t h e checks to t h e bank a t

S e a l e o r f a i l e d t o g i v e due and t i m e l y n o t i c e of nonpayment , whore

by a p p e l l a n t l o s t t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o l l e c t . The c a s e b e i n g

t r i e d by the c o u r t w i t h o u t a j u r y on the g e n e r a l i s s u e , j u d g -

ment went f o r a p p e l l e e .

By a c c e p t i n g the checks f o r d e p o s i t a p p e l l e e bank b e -

came the a g e n t of a p p e l l a n t f o r t h e i r c o l l e c t i o n . I f a p p e l l e e

f a i l e d to c o l l e c t t h r o u g h f a u l t of i t s own i t became l i a b l e t o

t h e owner and d e p o s i t o r f o r t h e l o s s s u s t a i n e d by him t h r o u g h

s u c h f a i l u r e . J e f f e r s o n County Bank v . H e n d r i x . 147 A l a . 670 ,

39 S . 2 9 5 , 1 L . B. A. (M.S . ) 246 .

As f o r a u g h t a p p e a r i n g i n t h e r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e ,

a p p e l l e e , p r o c e e d i n g a c c o r d i n g t o t h e p e r m i t of s e c t i o n 9222 of

t h e Code of 1923 , might have d i s c h a r g e d i t s d u t y i n t h e p r e m i s e s

by f o r w a r d i n g t h e checks to the drawee bank a t S e a l e . Tha t

s e c t i o n , e n a c t e d i n 1919, p r o v i d e s a s f o l l o w s :

"Due d i l i g e n c e i n Forward ing Checks D e f i n e d . — Any bank b a n k e r , o r t r u s t company, h e r e i n a f t e r c a l l e d b a n k , o r g a n i z e d u n d e r the %aws o f , o r d o i n g b u s i n e s s i n t h i s s t a t e , r e c e i v i n g f o r c o l l e c t i o n or d e p o s i t , any check , n o t e o r o t h e r n e g o t i a b l e i n s t r u m e n t drawn upon o r p a y a b l e a t any o t h e r b a n k , l o c a t e d i% a n o t h e r c i t y o r town, whe the r w i t h i n or w i t h o u t t h i s s t a t e , may f o r w a r d s u c h i n s t r u m e n t f o r c o l l e c t i o n d i r e c t l y to the bank on which i t i s drawn or a t which i t i s made p a y a b l e , and such method of f o r w a r d i n g d i r e c t t o t h e p a y e r , s h a l l be deemed due d i l i g e n c e and the f a i l u r e of such p a y e r b a n k , b e c a u s e o f i t s i n s o l v e n c y o r o t h e r d e f a u l t , t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e p r o c e e d s t h e r e o f , s h a l l n o t r e n d e r t h e f o r w a r d i n g bank l i a b l e t h e r e f o r , i f such f o r w a r d i n g bank s h a l l have u s e d due d i l i g e n c e i n

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

- 3 - X-S092

o t h e r r e s p e c t s i n connec t ion w i t h the c o l l e c t i o n of such i n s t r t i m e n i i "

P r o c e e d i n g o t h e r w i s e , and i n accordance w i t h i t s e s -

t a b l i s h e d u s a g e i n such c a s e s , a p p e l l e e , do ing b u s i n e s s a t G-irard,

18 m i l e s d i s t a n t f rom S e a l e , s e n t the checks t o i t s co r r e sponden t

a t Birmingham, the F i r s t N a t i o n a l Bank of Birmingham, by which ,

November 19, they were p l a c e d w i t h the Birmingham Branch of the

F e d e r a l Rese rve Bank, by which, on November 2 0 , they were i n d o r s e d

and forwarded to the F e d e r a l Reserve Bank a t A t l a n t a . On the

n e x t s u c c e e d i n g day t h e y were s e n t by mai l to t h e drawee bank a t

S e a l e , where t h e y remained u n p a i d u n t i l December 3 r d , whea,• as- we

have i n d i c a t e d , t h a t bank was b losed by an o f f i c e r of the f e d e r a l

government . From November 16 th to and i n c l u d i n g December 3 r d , i t

i s a g r e e d , t h e books of the drawee bank showed b a l a n c e s i n f a v o r

of a p p e l l a n t and Anderson, Benton & Co. , r e s p e c t i v e l y , i n excess

of the amount of t he checks i n q u e s t i o n . From November 17 th

to and i n c l u d i n g November 3 0 t h , i t i s a g r e e d t h a t the books of

the drawee bank showed cash b a l a n c e s r a n g i n g , to speak i n round

numbers , f rom $3 ,500 to $2 ,400; b u t i t i s n o t a g r e e d , nor was i t

shown, t h a t the bank had on hand d u r i n g the p e r i o d a c t u a l cash i n

t h e amounts shown by the books . December 3 r d , the drawee bank

had on hand $943*87.

I t a p p e a r s f rom the f o r e g o i n g s t a t e m e n t t h a t the F e d e r a l

Rese rve Bank of A t l a n t a d i d what the a p p e l l e e bank might have done

w i t h o u t i n c u r r i n g l i a b i l i t y — a s i d e from the q u e s t i o n of n e g l i g e n t

d e l a y t o be c o n s i d e r e d p r e s e n t l y — v i z . , f o rwarded t h e checks to

t h e drawee bank f o r payment . Code, S e c . 9222. Tha t , a s f a r a s Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

- 4 - X-6092

i t wont , was due d i l i g e n c o i n v i r t u e of t he s t a t u t e a b o u t t h e

wisdom of which we a r e n o t concerned and s u f f i c e d t o a b s o l v e

the f o r w a r d i n g bank or banks of any charge of n e g l i g e n c e i n send-

i n g the checks d i r e c t l y to the drawee bank . Code, S e c . 9222,

Former ly t h e r u l e was o t h e r w i s e . J e f f e r s o n County Bank v .

H e n d r i x . 147 A l a . 670, 39 So. 295, 1 L. R. A. (U .S . ) 246; F a r l e y

Bank v . P o l l o c k . 145 A l a . 321, 39 So. 612, 2 L . R. A. ( N . S . ) 194,

117 Am. S t . Rep. 4 4 , 8 Ann. Cas. 370; Lowens te in v . B r e s l e r ,

109 A l a . 326, 19 So. 860. But t h a t r u l e has been d i s p o s e d of

by the s t a t u t e s u p r a . Moreover, i t appea red i n t h e u n d i s p u t e d

ev idence t h a t the drawee bank , the F i r s t N a t i o n a l Bank of S e a l e ,

was t h e on ly bank l o c a t e d a t S e a l e , a s a p p e l l a n t knew. The

ev idence a l s o w a r r a n t e d the conc lus ion t h a t a p p e l l a n t was aware

of the p r a c t i c e of the a p p e l l e e bank t o d e a l w i t h c o l l e c t i o n s as i n

t h i s c a s e . In t h e case t h u s p r e s e n t e d i t cou ld h a r d l y be e x p e c t -

ed t h a t a p p e l l e e bank , i f i t e l e c t e d to d e a l w i t h the c o l l e c t i o n s

i n q u e s t i o n o t h e r w i s e t han a s the s t a t u t e p e r m i t t e d , would d e a l

w i t h them o t h e r w i s e than a s i t d i d . Banks a c c e p t i n g f o r c o l l e c -

t i o n d r a f t s upon ou t of town p o i n t s , more or l e s s d i s t a n t * f o r

t h e accommodation of d e p o s i t o r s , cannot be expec t ed to d i s p a t c h

one of i t s own o f f i c e r s o r a s p e c i a l messenger to o b t a i n payment

of t he b i l l s . D o r c h e s t e r Bank v . New England Bank. 1 Cush. (Mass)

186* Banks may g e t some i n c i d e n t a l b e n e f i t ou t of such c o l l e c -

t i o n s , b u t t h e p r i m a r y p u r p o r t of such t r a n s a c t i o n s i s the accom-

modat ion of the d e p o s i t o r . Some counts v e r y c l e a r l y p r o c e e d upon

the t h e o r y t h a t a p p e l l e e shou ld have s e n t an a g e n t f rom G i r a r d Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

- 5 - ' X-5092

to S e a l e to demand payment a t t he l a t t e r p l a c e . On c o n s i d e r a t i o n s

s t a t e d , our Judgment i s t h a t such counts could n o t he s u s t a i n e d

on the e v i d e n c e .

The common counts could no t "be " sus t a ined f o r r e a s o n s

p o i n t e d ou t i n J e f f e r s o n County Bank v . E c n d r i x . s u p r a . A p p e l l e e

r e c e i v e d the checks f o r c o l l e c t i o n . They were c r e d i t e d t o

a p p e l l a n t " s u b j e c t to payment . " Hor was any money r e c e i v e d from

t h e c o l l e c t i o n s u n d e r t a k e n & I f a p p e l l e e o r i t s a g e n t s were g a i l t y

of a c t i o n a b l e n e g l i g e n c c r e s u l t i n g i n l o s s to a p p e l l a n t , a d i f -

f e r e n t form of a c t i o n should have been employed. For l i k e r e a s o n s

the counts i n t r o v e r were w i thou t s u p p o r t .

Counts 16 and 19, i n which a p p e l l a n t sought to charge

a p p e l l e e on the ground t h a t i t had f a i l e d to g i v e a p p e l l a n t due

and t ime ly n o t i c e of nonpayment by the drawee bank a t S e a l e , a r e

the o n l y coun ts a f f o r d i n g any r e a s o n a b l e ground f o r ag rument .

The p r o o f i s t h a t on a number of occas ions a f t e r the d e p o s i t of

t h e checks a p p e l l a n t a p p l i e d to a p p e l l e e f o r i n f o r m a t i o n as t o

whe the r the checks had been p a i d and was i n fo rmed t h a t a p p e l l e e

had no i n f o r m a t i o n . Tha t , i n the c i r c u m s t a n c e s , meant n o t h i n g

on which to charge a p p e l l e e u n l e s s indeed t h e F e d e r a l Rese rve

Bank a t A t l a n t a could be h e l d to have been the agen t of a p p e l l e e

and i n t h a t c a p a c i t y shou ld have forwarded i n f o r m a t i o n which

would have b e e n a v a i l a b l e to a p p e l l a n t , f o r , on the u n d i s p u t e d

f a c t s , a p p e l l a n t knew as much abou t the s u b j e c t of i n q u i r y as

d i d a p p e l l e e . Conceding, t h e n , f o r t he a rgument , t h a t t h e F e d e r a l

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

- 6 - 1-6092

Reserve Bank Was n e g l i g e n t i n i t s d e a l i n g w i t h t h e checks ,

t h e q u e s t i o n of law p r e s e n t e d i s whether t h a t t a n k was the

r e s p o n s i b l e a g e n t of a p p e l l a n t or a p p e l l e e i n t h e m a t t e r of

c o l l e c t i n g the checks .

As a f f e c t e d "by the f a c t t h a t i t s e n t t h e chocks to i t s

c o r r e s p o n d e n t f o r c o l l e c t i o n , t h e r e a r e two l i n e s of d e c i s i o n '•dth

r e s p e c t to the du ty and l i a b i l i t y of a p p e l l e e bank i n the p r e m i s e s t

The s u b s t a n c e of t he two l i n e s i s thus b r i e f l y s t a t e a i n 3 Ru l ing

Case Law, a t page 622;

"One li:*e,v of a u t h o r i t i e s ho lds t o t h e r u l e t h a t the c o l l e c t i n g bank i s l i a b l e on ly f o r the s e l e c t i o n of a s u i t a b l e l o c a l a g e n t w i t h whom to i n t r u s t the c o l l e c t i o n , and t h a t t h e a g e n t so s e l e c t e d becomes the agen t of t he owner of the p a p e r ; w h i l e , on t h e o t h e r hand , i t i s h e l d t h a t the fo rward ing bank makes the l o c a l agen t i t s own s u b a g e n t , and i s l i a b l e f o r any n e g l e c t on t h e p a r t of the s u b a g e n t . "

I t i s c l e a r on the u n d i s p u t e d f a c t s and the l a ? as

h e r e t o f o r e s t a t e d t h a t n e i t h e r the F i r s t N a t i o n a l Bank of Birming-

ham no r t h e Branch of the F e d e r a l Reserve Bank a t Birmingham were

g u i l t y of any n e g l i g e n c e . They fo rwarded the checks p romp t ly

a c c o r d i n g t o the custom of banks i n such c a s e s . a n d , as i t must

be . i n f e r r e d fnpm the ev idence , £n agreement w i t h a p p e l l a n t ' s u n d e r -t

s t a n d i n g of t h e course the c o l l e c t i o n s were t o t a k e , i f t h a t i s

of any consequence , nor was i t shown t h a t e i t h e r of them had any

i n f o r m a t i o n which , i f communicated to a p p e l l a n t , might have given.

-i981 o p p o r t u n i t y - f o j p c o l l e c t i o n i n any. way. We ' th i i tk i t p r o p e r ,

t h e r e f o r e , t o t r e a t the case as p r e s e n t i n g t h e q u e s t i o n whe ther

the F e d e r a l Reserve Bank a t A t l a n t a should be cons ide red a s the

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

. ' - 7 - , X-6092

a g e n t of a p p e l l e e or a p p e l l a n t and to t r e a t tl^at q u e s t i o n as i t

would need "be t r e a t e d i f the c o l l e c t i o n s had been s e n t d i r e c t l y

by a p p e l l e e t o the bank a t A t l a n t a # -The f i r s t - s t a t e d r u l e i s

known i n the books as the Massachuse t t s r u l e ; the second as the

Hew York r u l e . An i m p r e s s i v e m a j o r i t y of the s t a t e c o u r t s f o l l o w

the f i r s t r u l e ; a v e r y r e s p e c t a b l e m i n o r i t y of the s t a t e c o u r t s

and the Supreme Court of the U n i t e d S t a t e s f o l l o w the second#

The d e c i s i o n i n E a f a u l a Grocery Co* v . Missour i N a t i o n a l

Bank, 118 A l a . 408, 24 So. 389, r e f e r r e d to i n the b r i e f , ex-

p r e s s l y p r e t e r m i t t e d a commit ta l of the c o u r t to e i t h e r of t he

s t a t e d d o c t r i n e s , b u t f o r the p u r p o s e s of t h a t case assumed the

r u l e a s f i r s t s t a t e d above as the a p p l i c a b l e l a w — - t h a t b e i n g the

more f a v o r a b l e to t he d e f e n d a n t i n t h a t case——for the r eason* as

t he c o u r t s t a t e d , t h a t t he a c t i o n t h e r e was w e l l b rough t u n d e r

e i t h e r r u l e .

I n Stone R ive r H a t . Bank v . Lerman M i l l i n g Co* , 9 Ala*

App. 322, 63 So. 776, the Court of Appeals d e f i n i t e l y committed

i t s e l f t o the Massachuse t t s 1 d o c t r i n e , bu t d i d so on t h e assumpt ion

t h a t t h i s c o u r t had so done in E u f a u l a Grocery Co* vs Mis sou r i

Bank, s u p r a . We have s t a t e d the p r o c e s s f o l l o w e d by t h e c o u r t

i n the E u f a u l a Grocery Co. Case.

I n Alexander v . Birmingham T r u s t Co. , 206 A l a , 50 ,

89 So. 66, 16 A . L. R. 1079, t h e d e c i s i o n i n the S tone R i v e r

Case was c i t e d w i t h the s t a t e m e n t t h a t i t had been rev iewed and

approved by t h i s c o u r t i n 185 A l a . 673, 64 So. 1019. But the

l a s t c i t a t i o n shows a memorandum d e c i s i o n , and we have no means

of a s c e r t a i n i n g j u s t what q u e s t i o n s were p r e s e n t e d to t h i s c o u r t Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

- 8 - X-5092

f o r d e c i s i o n "by the a p p l i c a t i o n f dr c e r t i o r a r i to the Court of

A p p e a l s . The r e l e v a n t d e c i s i o n i n Alexander vs. Birmingham T r u s t

Co. was s imply t h a t the p r o c e e d s of a d r a f t i n t he hands of a

co r r e sponden t bank were the p r o p e r t y of t h e cvner of the d r a f t

and s u b j e c t to ga rn i shment a g a i n s t such owner. I t thus a p p e a r s

t h a t t h e r e has been no d e f i n i t e commit ta l of t h i s c o u r t t o t h e

M a s s a c h u s e t t s r u l e .

However, our judgment i s t h a t the Massachuse t t s r u l e i s

more consonant w i t h what mast be the mutual "unders tand ing of the

p a r t i e s i n such c a s e s , i . e . , t h a t the c o n t r a c t i m p l i e d on t h e p a r t

of a bank t a k i n g p a p e r f o r c o l l e c t i o n f o r of course the p a r t i e s

by e x p r e s s c o n t r a c t may a r r a n g e the ma t t e r a s they w i l l — i s s imply

an u n d e r t a k i n g on the p a r t of the bank to e x e r c i s e ca re and d i l i -

gence i n the s e l e c t i o n of a p r o p e r and s u i t a b l e subagent and i n

t r a n s m i t t i n g the p a p e r , and , i f the bank has done t h a t , i t i s no t

l i a b l e f o r t h e d e f a u l t of i t s c o r r e s p o n d e n t . That r u l e seems to

u s t o have the s u p n o r t of the b e t t e r r e a s o n e d c a s e s . The q u e s t i o n

a t i s s u e i s d i s c u s s e d l e a r n e d l y and a t l e n g t h i n the c a s e s and i n

the e d i t o r i a l n o t e s to Br own v . P e o p l e ' s Bank. 52 L. R. A. (U .S . )

608; T i l lman County Bank v . B e h r i n g e r . 36 A. L. R . 1302; C i ty of

Douglas v . F e d e r a l Reserve Bank. 44 A. L. R. 1425, c o n t r o l l e d , of

c o u r s e , by t h e d e c i s i o n of the Supreme Court of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s

i n Exchange N a t i o n a l Bank v . Th i rd N a t i o n a l Bank. 112 U. S . 276,

5 S . Ct . 141, 28 L. Ed. 722; Cohen v . Tradesman 's N a t i o n a l Bank.

262 Pa. 76, 105 A. 43 , 4 A. 1 . R. 518, of which l a s t - n a m e d case t h e

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

- 9 - X-6092

a n n o t a t o r c o r r e c t l y observed t h a t " i t seems q u i t e c l e a r t h a t the

c o n c l u s i o n i n Cohen v . Tradesmen*s n a t i o n a l Bank i s c o r r e c t unde r

e i t h e r t heo ry*" as was the case i n Bufau l a Grocery Co* v s . Missour i

Bank, s u p r a ^ and i n the t e x t s of 7 C. J . S e e s . 262 , 263; 1 Morse

on Banks and Banking ( 5 t h Ed . ) S e e s . 272, 275; 2 Mich ie , Banks and

\ Banking, Sec . 162 (2) ; 3 R. C. L. Sec . 251, p . 622. In 1 Morse

on Bankd* and Banking t h i s q u e s t i o n i s d i s c u s s e d a t some l e n g t h and

the cases a r e c o n s i d e r e d . The au tho r g i v e s h i s u n q u a l i f i e d approv-

a l to the M a s s a c h u s e t t s r a l e ; shows t h a t t h e a u t h o r i t y of Chief

J u s t i c e M a r s h a l l r e s t s on the s i d e of t h a t r u l e n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g the

d e c i s i o n i n Exchange Bank v . Th i rd n a t i o n a l Bank, s u p r a ; and d i s -

c l o s e s the " i n v i n c i b l e r e a s o n i n g " of the r u l e s t a t e d by the

Massachuse t t s c a s e s , Fab ens v . Merchan t i l e Bank, 23 P i c k 330, 34

Am# Dec. 59, where Chief J u s t i c e Shaw c i t e s Chief J u s t i c e M a r s h a l l ,

and D o r c h e s t e r Bank v . ITew England Bank, s u p r a . The a u t h o r says

t h a t " i n the c a s e of c o l l e c t i o n , the usage t o f o r w a r d to a subagent

i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d , and the p a r t i e s must be presumed to c o n t r a c t

i n r e f e r e n c e to i t , " and quotes S t o r y on Agency, Sec . 201, a s

f o l l o w s : " I f t h e r e e x i s t s i n r e l a t i o n to t h e , b u s i n e s s a known and

e s t a b l i s h e d ; u s a g e of s u b s t i t u t i o n , the p r i n c i p a l would b e ^ h e l d to 4

haiSfe expec t ed and a u t h o r i z e d such S u b s t i t u t i o n , " and "a s u b s t i t u t e

appQjaated by an a g e n t , who has the power of s u b s t i t u t i o n , becomes

t h e agen t of t h e o r i g i n a l p r i n c i p a l and may b i n d him by h i s a c t s ,

and i s r e s p o n s i b l e to him as h i s a g e n t . " I n 3 R. C. L. Lubi s u p r a ,

we t h i n k we f i n d the c o r r e c t r u l e c l e a r l y s t a t e d as f o l l o w s :

I t would seem the more r e a s o n a b l e and j u s t c o n s t r u c t i o n of the u n d e r t a k i n g of the bank i n which the p a p e r i s d e p o s i t e d f o r c o l l e c t i o n , i s t h a t when the p a p e r i s p a y a b l e a t a n o t h e r

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

-1<K X-6092

and d i s t a n t p l a c e the "bank so r e c e i v i n g the b i l l d i s c h a r g e s i t s e l f of l i a b i l i t y by t r a n s m i t t i n g the same, i n due t ime , to a s u i t a b l e and r e p u t a b l e bank or o t h e r a g e n t a t the p l a c e of payment •11

The case i s a l s o w e l l s t a t e d by the Supreme Court of

Texas i n T i l lman County Bank v . B e h r i n g e r , s u p r a , dec ided so

r e c e n t l y as 1923, where the c o u r t , f r e e l y conceding the d e s i r -

a b i l i t y of agreement w i t h the r u l e of t he f e d e r a l c o u r t s i n

q u e s t i o n s a r i s i n g i n commercial law, r e s o l v e s , on what i t

c o n s i d e r s t o be " t h e weight of b e t t e r r eason ing , 1 1 to f o l l o w

the d o c t r i n e of a m a j o r i t y of the s t a t e c o u r t s . Without

u n d e r t a k i n g to s t a t e eve ry c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h a t appea r s to have

i n f l u e n c e d the c o u r t s to one d e c i s i o n or the o t h e r f o r they • *

a r e e a s i l y a c c e s s i b l e in. t he a u t h o r i t i e s c i t e d we have s t a t e d

i n "brief t h o s e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s which seem to us to be c o n c l u s i v e

The judgment mast be a f f i r m e d .

Digitized for FRASER http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis