Court Opinion

ID: 3588563
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 23:37:51.153912+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:59.134974
License: Public Domain

The defendant made the note in suit for the benefit and accommodation of the firm of Lambert  Lincoln. It was discounted and the proceeds passed to their credit by the North River Bank. Each member was therefore bound, as to the maker, to pay the note, and thus save him from liability on account thereof. Before the note became due the firm was dissolved, and Lincoln was to close up its business. Plaintiff lived in Canada, and Lincoln wrote him, requesting him to take up the note and furnish the money for that purpose. Plaintiff, a few days before the maturity of the note, sent Lincoln the money, which he placed in the bank to his individual credit. On the day the note fell due he went to the bank, and, by his individual check, paid the note to the discount clerk, who knew at the time that it was an accommodation note. He did not assume to act as agent for any one, and did not ask to have the note transferred to any one, and did not mention plaintiff's name in any way. It is true that he asked to have the note protested so that he could hold the indorser and maker, but he did not disclose why he wanted to hold them. After he had thus paid and taken it, he sent it to the plaintiff. Upon such a state of facts, did plaintiff take his title from the bank or from Lincoln? If he took it from the bank, he took the place of the bank, and his title and right to enforce it were as good as those of the bank at the time he took it. But if he took it from Lincoln it being past due, he took it subject to any defence defendant could have made if sued by Lincoln, and in such case defendant's defence would have been perfect. He could not be successfully sued by either of the persons for whose accommodation he made the note.
Plaintiff did not take title from the bank. It matters not that he furnished the money, and that Lincoln promised to use it in taking up this note for him. It matters not that *Page 212 
the note was protested so that the indorser and maker could be held, or that the bank did not intend absolutely to discharge and cancel the note. The question is, did the bank transfer or sell the note to the plaintiff? To make a sale or transfer takes two parties, one to sell and the other to buy, and the bank could not be made a seller without its knowledge or consent. It was not bound to sell or transfer the note. All it was bound to do was to surrender it upon payment by the person liable to pay it. A seller in such a case incurs some obligation by the sale, although he does not indorse the paper. He impliedly warrants that the paper is genuine and all it purports to be on its face, and he cannot be drawn into this implied warranty without his consent. (Eastman v. Plumer, 32 N.H., 238; Delaware Bank v.Jarvis, 20 N.Y., 226; Morrison v. Currie, 4 Duer, 79;Aldrich v. Jackson, 5 R.I., 218; 2 Parsons on Notes and Bills [2d ed.], 37.) All the bank did in this case was to take payment of the note, and deliver it up to a party paying and liable to pay, after protesting it, so that he could make such use of it as as the law and the facts would authorize. It did not transfer or intend to transfer it. The plaintiff, therefore, took no title to it from the bank, but he took it from Lincoln, and cannot, therefore, enforce it against the defendant.
The order of the General Term must, therefore, be affirmed, and judgment absolute ordered against the plaintiff, with costs.
All concur.
Order affirmed and judgment accordingly.