Court Opinion

ID: 9638006
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:29:24.728375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:00.148486
License: Public Domain

MATHEWS, Circuit Judge
(dissent-
ing)-
The check in question was drawn by a disbursing agent of the Veterans Bureau on the Treasurer of the United States. Thus, appellee (the United States) was both drawer and drawee of the check. United States v. National Exchange Bank of Baltimore, 270 U.S. 527, 534, 46 S.Ct. 388, 70 L.Ed. 717.
The check was payable to the order of Staryos Anastasiadis. Anastasiadis was dead when the check was issued, but appellee had no knowledge of his death. It had information that he was dead, but it had other information that he. was still alive. Being dead, he was, at the date of the check, a “non-existing person,” 6 but — that fact being unknown to appellee — the check was not, for that or any other reason, payable to bearer.
The check was issued in response to an application for a loan — a loan to Anastasia-*192dis. The person who filed the application and signed Anastasiadis’ name to it was an impostor. That, however, is immaterial here. The check was not issued or mailed to the impostor. It was issued and mailed to Anastasiadis.
Anastasiadis being dead, the check remained and was at all times the property of appellee. It could not be and was not delivered to Anastasiadis. It could and should have been returned to the Veterans Bureau. Such return was prevented by a thief, who stole the check, 7 forged Anastasiadis’ name on the back of it and negotiated it. Appellant, in good faith and for value, acquired the check, endorsed it, presented it-for payment, and obtained payment.
The trial court properly concluded that appellant, by its endorsement, had guaranteed the forged endorsement, and that appellee was not estopped to assert the fact that the forgery was a forgery. United States v. National Exchange Bank of Providence, 214 U.S. 302, 310-320, 29 S.Ct. 665, 53 L.Ed. 1006, 16 Ann.Cas. 1184; Onondaga County Savings Bank v. United States, 2 Cir., 64 F. 703.
The judgment should be affirmed.

 California Civil Code, § 3090(3).

 The findings do not use' the word “thief” or the word “stole,” but they do clearly show that someone who was not the owner and was not entitled to possession of the check got possession of it and appropriated it to Ms own use. This, obviously, was a theft,