Court Opinion

ID: 9532705
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:24:09.257734+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:49.431045
License: Public Domain

McCALEB, Justice
(concurring).
I am in accord with the ruling that plaintiff is not the holder of the checks within the contemplation of the negotiable instruments law and that it has an interest in bringing the suit, even though it has not actually reimbursed the drawees of the six checks. Since the forgery of the endorsement by Anderson is not questioned and plaintiff has conceded its liability to the drawees, its position is somewhat analogous to that of a drawer whose account has been debited by the drawee on an instrument bearing an unauthorized endorsement. In such case, as pointed out in the main opinion, the drawer may recover the amount called for by the instrument from the drawee, that is, he may force the removal of the unauthorized debit provided he surrenders the instrument bearing the forged endorsement to the drawee to aid the latter in his action against prior parties.
In the case at bar, inasmuch as the checks have been surrendered or tendered for surrender (plaintiff attaches them tq its petition as part thereof), the condition precedent has been met and therefore its cause of action against Vuci is cognizable.