Court Opinion

ID: 9620014
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:37:04.544364+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:44.113327
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
*130Submitted on respondent Zimmerman’s petition for rehearing.
Jack L. Hoffman, Portland, submitted a brief for petitioner.
Before Rossman, J., Presiding, and Warner, Perry, Sloan, O’Connell, Goodwin and Lusk, Justices.
Petition denied.
O’CONNELL, J.
Defendant Ada Zimmerman petitions the court for a rehearing. The petition is denied. However, several matters are presented in the petition which prompt us to clarify our former opinion. We held that O and K Construction Company was entitled to recover interest on the amount of each of the cheeks from the date of conversion in each instance. The date was not specified. The O. and K Construction Company’s cross-complaint against plaintiff prays for interest from a specified date with respect to each of the 26 checks .for which recovery was sought against the plaintiff. Similarly, the cross-complaint against Zimmerman and the plaintiff with respect to the other four checks designates the date from which interest is to run. The date specified was, in each instance, subsequent to the *131date indicated on the back of the check showing the exercise of dominion and control by the bank and, of course, subsequent to the conversion of the cheeks in each case by Zimmerman.
Our former opinion is clarified to provide that interest is recoverable from the date specified in the cross-complaint. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the sum claimed is liquidated. The evidence did not establish that any of the appropriated moneys were returned to the O and K Construction Company. Plaintiff was a converter of the checks owned by O and K Construction Company. We do not believe that the filing of the interpleader suit should absolve it from liability in this respect, which would include the liability for interest from the date of conversion. Cf., Annotation, 15 ALR2d 473, 479 (1951). The defense proposed by Gresham State Bank was tendered to and accepted by Zimmerman. We regarded this as putting in issue the liability of Zimmerman for the interest alleged in the cross-complaint against the bank for the reason that Zimmerman was liable on its endorsement to the plaintiff, the endorsement warranting the cheeks to be genuine. ORS 71.066 (N.I.L. § 66); Brannon, Negotiable Instrument Law (Beutel’s 7th ed 1948) pp. 965-66 and cases cited therein. Cf., Peterson v. Thompson, 78 Or 158, 151 P 721, 152 P 497 (1915). The proceeding being in equity, it was within the power of this court to adjust the liability of all of the parties before it, including the derivative liability of Zimmerman for the interest for which the bank was liable as a converter.
We held that the O and K Construction Company was entitled to be credited with the amount of the funds deposited by plaintiff, in addition to a judgment against Zimmerman for the amount awarded as plain*132tiff’s attorney fees and costs and disbursements. Petitioner contends that this would require Zimmerman to pay the amount awarded to plaintiff twice. It should be unnecessary to say that this was not intended. The obvious purpose of the direction was to make O and K Construction Company whole by permitting recovery of the amount deposited (less the attorney’s fees and costs allowed to plaintiff) and, to the extent the deposit was deficient as a result of the allowance made to plaintiff, permit recovery against Zimmerman.
The petition is denied.