Court Opinion

ID: 9808061
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:26:45.190676+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:08:42.619063
License: Public Domain

Stacy, C. J.,
dissenting: It seems to me that tbe rule with respect to considering tbe evidence in its most favorable light for tbe plaintiff, on a motion to nonsuit, has been reversed in this case, and that tbe more favorable inferences to be drawn therefrom have been given to tbe defendant.
There is evidence on the record tending to show that the Banking, Loan and Trust Company of Jonesboro (hereafter called the Jonesboro Bank), on 30 December, 1926, took the draft in question for collection as agent of the plaintiff, and forwarded the same to the Wachovia Bank and Trust Company (hereafter called the Wachovia Bank) at Winston-Salem, N. C., for collection, or “for collection and credit.” The evidence further shows that the Wachovia Bank accepted said draft simply as agent “for collection” (R., p. 10), and in acknowledging receipt thereof denominated itself as such agent in the following language :
“(1) Items drawn on this bank not good at tbe close of business day may be charged back to depositors; (2) Items received for collection or credit and not drawn on this bank are taken at depositor’s risk, and should tbe same be lost or should no returns be received within a reasonable time, such items may be charged back to depositor; (3) Items may be sent direct to bank upon which they are drawn or at which payable, or to or through collecting -agents, for collection and remittance, and collecting agents shall have the right to send items direct to bank on which drawn or at which payable; (4) This bank and collecting agents may accept either cash or draft in payment of such items and will not be liable for failure to collect drafts so received; (5) Each collecting agent is the agent of depositor, but no agent shall be liable for any loss growing out of the neglect, default or failure of another agent; (6) Should any item be not paid or any agent fail to remit proceeds therefor, this bank may charge the item back to the depositor. Delivery to the bank of items for collection or credit shall constitute acceptance of the above conditions by the depositor, in the absence of written notice to the contrary at the time.”
Under this evidence, as I understand it, the jury might well find, and would be fully warranted in finding, that no beneficial title to the draft in question ever passed to the Jonesboro Bank or to the Wachovia Bank.
*350It has been the insistent holding with us that as to whether a bank becomes a purchaser for value of a negotiable instrument, check or draft, or takes it as an agent for collection only, rests fundamentally in intent, and this is primarily a question of fact to be determined by the jury where the evidence is equivocal or susceptible to more than one inference. Bank v. Rochamora, 193 N. C., 1, 136 S. E., 259; Finance Co. v. Mills Co., 187 N. C., 233, 121 S. E., 439; Sterling Mills v. Saginaw Milling Co., 184 N. C., 461, 114 S. E., 756; Temple v. LaBerge, 184 N. C., 252, 114 S. E., 166; Mangum v. Grain Co., 184 N. C., 181, 114 S. E., 2; Moon-Taylor Co. v. Gray-Smith Mill Co., 176 N. C., 407, 97 S. E., 213; Worth Co. v. Feed Co., 172 N. C., 335, 90 S. E., 295; Bank v. Exum, 163 N. C., 199, 79 S. E., 498; Latham v. Spragins, 162 N. C., 404, 78 S. E., 282; Davis v. Lumber Co., 130 N. C., 174, 41 S. E., 95; Cotton Mills v. Weil, 129 N. C., 452, 40 S. E., 218; Note, 42 A. L. R., 492.
But it is stated in the Court’s opinion that this principle is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 'Why not ? If the proceeds of the draft in question had been attached in New York as the property of the plaintiff, the Wachovia Bank, being an agent for collection only, as appears from its acknowledgment of said draft, would have been relieved entirely from responsibility. When did the Wachovia Bank cease to be an agent for collection and become a purchaser for value of this draft? I do not think the record answers in such way as to warrant a dismissal of the action. It assumed responsibility as an agent for collection only, but having collected, it now claims the right to use said funds as an offset against its liability to the Jonesboro Bank, and this claim is upheld. Unless we are prepared to overrule the decisions above cited, and many others of like tenor, nothing else appearing, I think the plaintiff is entitled to have the case submitted to a jury.