Court Opinion

ID: 9673270
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:09:22.026366+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:21.200717
License: Public Domain

Spencer, J.,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion *293herein because I do not agree with its basic premise that the United States National Bank was a payor bank. I agree that the United States National Bank was a collecting bank in these transactions. The distinction is important as under the Uniform Commercial Code there are different provisions applicable to determine the proper deadline for return of items and for notification of dishonor. The same is true as to the measure of damages for the two types of transactions. The Uniform Commercial Code subjects collecting banks to less stringent return deadlines and damage provisions than it does payor banks.
Notwithstanding the fact the symbol “CK No.” is printed on the instruments, they are drafts drawn by Ferer on itself, payable to the order of Berman Steel Company, with the legend printed on the face of the draft “through the United States National Bank of Omaha.”
Section 3-120, U.C.C., provides as follows: “An instrument which states that it is ‘payable through’ a bank or the like designates that bank as a collecting bank to make presentment but does not of itself authorize the bank to pay the instrument.” The comment to § 3-120, U.C.C., reads in part as follows: “This section states the commercial understanding as to the effect of such language. The bank is not named as a drawee, and it is not ordered or even authorized to pay the instrument out of the drawer’s account or any other funds of the drawer in its hands. Neither is it required to take the instrument for collection in the absence of special agreement to that effect. It is merely designated as a collecting bank through which presentment is properly made to the drawee.”
In addition, section 4-105, U.C.C., defines the term “payor bank” as “a bank by which an item is payable as drawn or accepted.” Comment 3 to that section states: “Items are sometimes drawn or accepted ‘payable through’ a particular bank. Under this section and *294section 3-120 the ‘payable through’ bank (if it in fact handles the item) will be a collecting (and often a presenting) bank; it is not a ‘payor bank.’ ”
I agree with the majority opinion as to the reversal on the fifth cause of action, and the affirmance of the action on the cross-appeal. I believe the judgment
should also be reversed as to the first four causes of action.
Boslaugh, J., joins in this dissent.