Court Opinion

ID: 9834416
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:34:12.072176+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:14.838357
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant very earnestly urges' us to reconsider our opinion, and to examine authorities not heretofore presented by him. We have done that, and briefly give our reasons for overruling it All the issues in this ease were plainly and correctly submitted by special charges, which the jury answered, in favor of appellee.
There is complaint again urged that the trial court erred in refusing to give the appellant’s special charge No. 3, requested, to the effect, Has plaintiff shown by the preponderance of evidence that the $2,940.00 mentioned was executed by defendant or by his authority?
We say this charge had been sufficiently given, and it was. The appellant labors under very great misapprehension in saying that we hold a jury should not be instructed that the plaintiff is required to establish his case by the preponderance of evidence. No such charge is requested or refused. The books of the bank showed the entry of the note of $2,940, against appellant. Appellant’s own testimony showed Rheiner was authorized to fill in the amounts. There was testimony showing Rheiner admitted his liability, in that the $3,038 note sued on was *627a renewal of the former $2,940, and .this testimony supported the findings of the jury.
It is true the cashier of a bank haying large authority is an agent of the bank within the scope of his authority. But when he exceeds them, the bank will not be bound. Ledgerwood v. Dashiell, 177 S. W. 1012.
If'Rheiner exceeded his authority in writing in a false amount in the note, appellant could defeat the improper amount, because the bank, through him, would have all the information Rheiner would have of the matter.
While, as stated, Rheiner would as a matter of law be the agent of the bank to do its lawful acts, he was not the agent of the bank empowered to fill in amounts in appellant’s notes. But his dual capacity would bring home to the bank knowledge of everything he knew. Now this dual capacity does not protect the appellant. It is well established that “He who trusts most must lose most,” and a case can hardly be found where there was more trust placed than was placed in the agent. But how does this dual agency or capacity benefit appellant? The issue was directly submitted as to whether or not he owed the $2,940, and whether it was embraced in the $3,038, and the jury found against him. As there was proof to support the findings, we do not feel authorized to set them aside.
The motion for a rehearing is overruled.