Redington v. Woods
Citations
- 45 Cal. 406
Syllabus
<p>Liability op Drawee op Check.—The drawee of a check is hound, at his peril, to know the handwriting of the drawer; and if he pay a check to which the signature of the drawer has been forged, he must suffer the loss as between himself and the'drawer, or an innocent holder to whom he has made payment.</p> <p>Presumption as to Signature and Handwriting in Check.—The drawee of a check is presumed to be acquainted with the signature of the drawer, but not with the handwriting in the body of the check; and the fact that the handwriting in the body of the check is not that of the drawer raises no presumption that it is not genuine.</p> <p>Liability por Payment op Altered Check.—If the drawee pay, even to an innocent holder, a check which has been fraudulently altered in amount after it left the hands of the drawer, he will be entitled to recover back from the person to whom it was paid the excess over the true amount of the check, unless the alteration is made in such a manner that on the face of the paper there appears enough to excite suspicion of fraud, or the drawee has information which would lead a prudent person to suspect that the check has been altered.</p> <p>.Suspicious Pacts Requiring Inquiry.—Where a party received from a stranger, in exchange for legal tender notes, what purported to be a genuine check of a third person, the signature being genuine, and the writing in the body of the paper being in the usual form, though in a handwriting different from that usually employed, and on applying by an agent for payment of the check, informed the drawee that the check had been presented by a stranger: held, that these facts were not of such a suspicious character as to put the drawee on inquiry as to the genuineness of the check; and that if there was any negligence in the case on either side (the check having, after payment, been discovered to have been altered as to the amount), it was on the part of the holder in receiving the check.</p> <p>Laches in Demandin
Judges: Crockett
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
14 cases in this archive cite this case.
- National Bank of Rolla v. First National Bank of SalemMissouri Court of Appeals· 1910-02-07· cited 29×
- Kenneth Investment Co. v. National BankMissouri Court of Appeals· 1902-08-06· cited 25×
- Canadian Bank of Commerce v. BinghamWashington Supreme Court· 1902-12-20· cited 19×
- Gomez v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1955-05-18· cited 17×
- People v. CasarezCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2012-02-27· cited 13×
- First National Bank v. Marshalltown State BankSupreme Court of Iowa· 1899-01-25· cited 13×
- Security Commercial & Savings Bank v. Southern Trust & Commerce BankCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1925-10-28· cited 11×
- First National Bank v. First National BankIndiana Court of Appeals· 1892-03-15· cited 11×
- Burke v. First Peoples Bank of NJNew Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1980-01-14· cited 6×
- Crane v. Dexter Horton & Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1893-01-06· cited 5×
- Geering v. Metropolitan BankAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1915-12-30· cited 3×
- Annett v. Chase National BankAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1921-04-29· cited 3×
- Merchants National Bank v. Continental National BankCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1929-04-26· cited 3×
- First State Bank v. VogeliSupreme Court of Kansas· 1908-06-06
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.