Reynolds v. National Bank of Commerce

Citations

• 104 Kan. 215
• 178 P. 605
• 1919 Kan. LEXIS 228

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Bank Draft — Wrongful Appropriation by a, Husband of Proceeds of Draft Belonging to His Wife. A finding that a wife had authorized - her husband to have the proceeds of a draft placed to his credit, held to have been qualified by a further finding that such authority had been conferred by the delivery to him of the draft, which was made payable to the collecting bank, and therefore to have amounted to a mere conclusion of. law; and further held, that the general verdict did not imply such a finding, because under the instructions it was authorized upon other grounds.</p> <p>2. Same. Where a person draws upon a debtor, the draft being accompanied by the evidence of the debt and being made payable to a bank, the fact that the drawer places such instrument in the hands of her husband to be delivered to the bank does not protect it in using the proceeds for the husband’s benefit, according to his direction, where he had in fact no authority to direct such disposition. •</p> <p>3. Same. In the situation stated, the possession of the draft by the husband prior to its delivery to the bank was no evidence of his having a right to the proceeds, nor did it make competent his statements concerning it. The competent evidence held not sufficient to show prima facie that the wife actually authorized her husband to direct the proceeds of the draft to be used for his own benefit, or that she had invested him with such apparent authority in that regard as to protect the bank in relying thereon.</p>