Russo-Chinese Bank v. National Bank of Commerce of Seattle

Citations

• 241 U.S. 403
• 36 S. Ct. 652
• 60 L. Ed. 1065
• 1916 U.S. LEXIS 1720

Syllabus

<p>In an action by a bank in Port Arthur to recover money, remitted by it to a, bank in Seattle for a draft secured by shipping documents sent to it for collection by the Seattle Bank, and which the Port Arthur Bank declared had not been paid, but for which it remitted on agreement of the Seattle bank to refund in case non-payment was proved, the jury found a general verdict in favor of the Seattle Bank and also a special finding to the effect that the Port Arthur Bank did receive payment for the draft in question; such special finding was based on testimony to effect that the Port Arthur Bank permitted the consignee to take possession of 'the goods covered by the documents attached to the draft on his agreeing to deposit the proceeds thereof as sold, and an instruction to the effect that such action on the part of a bank receiving a draft for collection constituted a payment in law; judgment being entered thereon and' affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, this court reviewing on certorari held that:</p> <p>The fair import of the instructions of the trial judge in their entirety, being that the finding of payment was to be reached only in case the value of the goods was not less than the amount of the draft, there was no error therein.</p> <p>Where a bank, holding a-draft for collection with documents annexed and with instructions to deliver the documents only on payment, allows the drawee to take the goods covered by the documents on his promises to sell and account for proceeds, it amounts to a misappropriation of the property and liability to account for its value immediately arises.</p> <p>There was no error in charging that the collecting bank became invested with the ownership of the goods and could not be excused from obligation to-account by declaring'that the goods had disappeared without its knowledge, the charge not being to. effect that the relation of vendor and vendee did exist, but that the relation of principal and agent did exist, and, as such a