Morris-Miller Co. v. Von Pressentin

Citations

• 63 Wash. 74
• 114 P. 912
• 1911 Wash. LEXIS 1159

Syllabus

<p>Banks and Banking — Checks—Deposit foe. Collection — Title. A customer’s indorsement of a check without restriction, and its deposit with credit subject to check, does not pass the title to the bank, where there was an understanding and custom that'the bank was to receive it for collection and charge it back to the customer if dishonored.</p> <p>Banks and Banking — Deposits—Parol Evidence of Conditions— Competency. Evidence is competent to show that the delivery and indorsement of a check to a bank by a depositor, without restriction, is in fact conditional, and for the purpose of collection without passing title, under Rem. & Bal. Code, § 3407, so providing as to the delivery of an indorsed instrument which has not come into the hands of a holder in due course.</p> <p>Banks and Banking — Checks—Failure to Collect — Negligence —Notice to Drawer. Where a depositor was put upon notice of the failing condition of his bank, was reducing his deposits, and knew that it could not obtain funds to meet its obligations, he is not injured by, and cannot complain of, negligence in the failure to notify him of nonpayment of a check which he had drawn and sent to another city, whereby several days would elapse before any steps could be taken to collect the check, during which time he learned of the dishonor at a time when the bank had sufficient cash to pay it, but made no attempt to protect himself either by insisting upon payment of the check or withdrawing the deposit, and the bank was insolvent.</p> <p>Same — -Evidence of Negligence — Burden of Proof. In an action by the drawer of a check to charge the payee with negligence in failing to collect it, the burden is upon the plaintiff to prove that the drawee -was solvent and the claim good and collectible.</p>