Seattle National Bank v. Powles

Citations

• 33 Wash. 21
• 73 P. 887
• 1903 Wash. LEXIS 484

Syllabus

<p>Sales—Recession—Agency—Sufficiency of Evidence. Where defendant, a broker, paid a draft accompanying a consignment of fruit by a cheek to a collecting bank, which thereupon delivered the bill of lading to the defendant and gave notice to the drawer that the draft was paid, and defendant attempted to rescind the contract and stopped payment of the check upon discovering defects in the goods, in an action on the check the issue tendered in defendant’s answer that the collecting bank was agent of the consignor is material to his defense of rescission, and is not supported by proof that it may have been agent for the consignor’s bank, for the purpose of collection.</p> <p>Same. The draft appearing to have been purchased by the forwarding bank, the collecting bank rendered itself liable by delivering the bill of lading and giving notice that the draft was paid, and as these acts were instigated by the defendant, he must suffer the loss.</p> <p>Same—Estoppel. The defense of rescission in toto of a contract upon which goods were consigned cannot be maintained where the defendant surrendered the bill of lading to the carrier, removed and sold a portion of the goods, retains the proceeds thereof, together with overcharges collected on the freight prepaid by the consignor, and stopped payment on his check only after notice had been given by the collecting bank that the draft was paid.</p> <p>Same—Evidence—Custom. In such a case it was competent to admit testimony on the part of the plaintiff as to what became of the goods and proceeds, and the rejection of evidence as to the custom of merchants as to the disposition of goods upon such consignments was not prejudicial error.</p>