Court Opinion

ID: 9652719
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:30:53.626193+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:53.738426
License: Public Domain

JONES, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I fully concur in the judgment of the court but do so upon the ground that the Pennsylvania Bank Collection Act,1 by its own requirements, is unavailing to relieve the defendant bank of its common-law liability 'under the undisputed facts of the case. Had the defendant bank, as the collecting agent, endorsed and transmitted to the drawer of the draft the check which the drawee originally gave the defendant in payment, a question as to th,e applicability of the act might have been raised. The intent and scope of the act would then have become important. But, such is not this case. The defendant bank transmitted nothing to the drawer of the draft in intended payment thereof. After having surrendered the draft with attached bill of lading (and, by the same token, the goods covered thereby) to the drawee of the draft in exchange for the latter’s check, the defendant returned the check to the drawee of the draft upon receiving back the bill of lading and then returned the draft to the forwarding agent as having been dishon■ored for nonpayment. The defendant bank does not rely upon a collection of any kind. The act, therefore, is in no way applicable and the defendant’s liability under the law merchant must be enforced. Cf. Stewart v. Pen Argyl National Bank, 307 Pa. 328, 335, 161 A. 327 et seq.

 Act of June 12, 1931, P.L. 568, Sec. 9, 7 P.S. § 220