Sec. 89. (II) Mistake By Payor For Honor As To Genuineness Of Drawer's Signature
Description
This section is from the book "The Law Of Quasi Contracts", by Frederic Campbell Woodward. Also available from Amazon: The Law of Quasi Contracts.
Sec. 89. (II) Mistake By Payor For Honor As To Genuineness Of Drawer's Signature
In the English case of Wilkinson v. John-son,5 one who paid for honor a bill on which the name of the "A bill is carried for payment to the person whose name appears as acceptor, or as agent of an acceptor, entirely as a matter of course. . . . But it is by no means a matter of course to call upon a person to pay a bill for the honor of an indorser; and such a call, therefore, imports on the part of the person making it, that the name of a correspondent, for whose honor the payment is asked, is actually on the bill. The person thus called upon ought certainly to satisfy himself that the name of his correspondent is really on the bill; but still his attention drawer was forged, was allowed to recover. There appears to be no reason for this distinction between the case of the acceptor and that of the payor for honor, and the American courts have declined to differentiate them.1 In Goddard v. Merchant's Bank,2 however, one who paid for honor was allowed to recover upon the ground, apparently, that he paid without an opportunity to inspect the bill for the purpose of determining whether or not it was genuine.3
1 1895, 60 Minn. 189, 192; 62 N. W. 327; 27 L. R. A. 635; 51 Am. St. Rep. 519.
2 Citing: 2 Parsons, "Notesand Bills," 80; Morse, "Banks," c. 33; Daniel, "Negotiable Instruments," c. 42; 9 Am. Law Rev. 411; note to People's Bank v. Franklin Bank, 17 Am. St. Rep. 889. See also dissenting opinion of Canty, J., in Germania Bank v. Boutell, supra; Jones v. Miners' and Merchants' Bank, 1910, 144 Mo. App. 428; 128 S. W. 829, 830; First Nat. Bank v. Bank of Wyndmere, 1906, 15 N. D. 299; 108 N. W. 546; 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 49.
3 Tradesmen's Nat. Bank v. Third Nat. Bank, 1870, 66 Pa. St. 435; Chambers v. Union Nat. Bank, 1875, 78 Pa. St. 205; People's Savings Bank v. Cupps, 1879, 91 Pa. St. 315.
4 First Nat. Bank v. Bank of Wyndmere, 1906, 15 N. D. 299; 108 N. W. 546; 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 49; American Express Co. v. State Nat. Bank, 1911, 27 Okl. 824; 113 Pac. 711; 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 188.
5 1824, 3 Barn. & C. 428, 436. Abbott, C. J.:
Continue to:
My Books
