Case ID: ill-app_195/html/0030-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice McGoorty", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

J. Wallace Wakem, Appellee, v. Colonial Trust & Savings Bank, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 20,752.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John D. Turnbaugh, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed October 5, 1915.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by J. Wallace Wakem against the Colonial Trust & Savings Bank, a corporation, for the alleged conversion by said bank of a promissory note in the sum of $2,000 made by John T. Cheney, under date of July 9,1912, due four months from its date, bearing interest at the rate of six per cent, per annum, indorsed in blank by Clinton S. Woolf oik and the Realty Realization Company, and of forty shares of the capital stock of the said company which was attached to said note as collateral security. Plaintiff purchased the note from R. C. Keller, vice-president and cashier of the Colonial Trust & Savings Bank, and the note with the collateral attached was subsequently deposited with the bank for collection. The bank issued its receipt to plaintiff, under said date, reciting therein that it had received the note for collection. The plaintiff denied that he authorized the bank to deliver the _x__ note to the indorser, Woolf oik, and no written authority was given to the hank to deliver the note to such indorser.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Banks and banking, § 152
      
      —when hank is liable for negligence. If no authority is given to a bank to deliver a note to an indorser thereon for collection, such unauthorized act on the part of the bank constitutes negligence, and the bank is liable for any loss resulting therefrom.
    2. Appeal and error, § 1396
      
      —when finding will he set aside on appeal. Evidence held to justify a finding that a bank was not authorized to deliver a note to an indorser thereon for collection.
    3. Appeal and error, § 1173
      
      —when propositions of law refused need not he considered on appeal. Where no complaint is made as to propositions of law held by the court, which propositions correctly state the principles of law applicable to the evidence, it is unnecessary to consider objections to propositions of law refused.
    Following the death of the indorser, Woolf oik, about five months after the maturity of the note, plaintiff for the first time, according to his testimony, learned that the hank had delivered the note to such indorser. Neither the note nor collateral has ever been found, and plaintiff has received no proceeds from either. There was a finding in favor of plaintiff, and judgment for $2,183.46, whereupon defendants appeal.
    Adams, Follahsbee, Hawley & Shorey, for appellant; Mitchell D. Follansbee and Fred Barth, of counsel.
    W. W. Gurley and Walter F. Olds, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice McGoorty

delivered the opinion of the court.