Orr, Bean v. (C. C. A.). 599 Southern Lumber Co. v. Long (C. C.). 82 789 330 Oxley, In re (D. C.).. .1019 Oshinsky, Lorraine Mfg. Co. v. (C. C.).. 407 Standard Asphalt & Rubber Co., Canary Page, Midland Val. R. Co. v. (C. C.).... 125 Oil Co. v. (C. C.)....... 663 Standard Oil Co., Harding v. (C. C.). 421 .1023 705 498 779 Patterson v. Patterson (C. C.).. 952 155 State of California, Peralta v. (C. C. A.). 755 457 513 282 779 Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. New York City R. Co. (C. C.). 937 Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. New York City R. 958 Pennypacker, City Nat. Bank of Tiffin, 985 People's Sav. Bank & Trust Co., Rogers v. Peralta v. State of California (C. C. A.).. 755 Taylor, In re (D. C.)... 187 353 Tennessee Lumber Mfg. Co. v. Clark Bros. 618 Portsmouth, The (D. C.)... Thomas, Boss Mfg. Co. v. (C. C. A.)... 811 Thomas Deutschle & Co., In re (D. C.)... 430 289 Thomas Deutschle & Co., In re (D. C.).... 435 Thompson Starrett Co., Kern v. (C. C.).. 511 492 Thompson-Starrett Co., Vandevort v. (C. 890 C.) 875 Prentis, United States v. (D. C.).. Price, Shelton v. (C. C. A.). 1023 894 Tibbs v. Deemer Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.). 48 129 Pritchett v. Sullivan (C. C. A.). 480 Pulom v. Jacob Dold Packing Co. (C. C.) 356 Trammell v. Southern R. Co. (C. C. A.).... 789 64 .603 Trust Co. of America, Warburton v. (C. C. 769 United States v. Peterson (C. C. A.). 240 493 51 Westman, United States v. (D. C.).. ..1017 289 West Virginia & Maryland Gas Co., Cum894 berland Gaslight Co. v. (C. C.).... 675 Whitley, Morris & Co. v. (C. C.)... 274 Wiess, Marine Iron Works v. (Č. C. A.). .1022 Wilhelm, Houston Oil Co. of Texas v. (C. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Cooper (C. C.).. 710 667 286 474 A.) 802 Williams v. Layman (C. C. A.). 193 .1017 Williams Lumber Co., Houston Oil Co. of Texas v. (C. C. A.)... 204 .1022 United States Consol. Seeded Raisin Co., Kings County Raisin & Fruit Co. v. (C.) C. A.)..... CASES ON REHEARING CASES IN THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS IN WHICH REHEARINGS HAVE BEEN GRANTED OR DENIED ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURTS CF; APPEALS AND THE CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT COURTS NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE OF TACOMA, WASH., v. TACOMA MILL CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. October 3, 1910.) No. 1,796. 1. BANKS AND BANKING (§§ 138, 151*) - RELATION BETWEEN BANK AND DEPOSITOR-UNAUTHORIZED PAYMENTS BY BANK-ESTOPPEL OF CUSTOMER. A depositor sustains such relation to his bank that he is bound to give heed to the periodical statements coming from the bank in connection with the return of his passbook showing the balancing of his account. If he interposes no objection to such statements, the presumption naturally follows that he deems them correct, and the bank has the right to rely on such presumption and act upon it in the future. If transactions of an irregular character have been noted therein, such as the inadvertent payment by the bank of checks and drafts beyond the scope of express authority, it may be, depending upon the peculiar facts and circumstances attending the transactions themselves, that the depositor will be subsequently estopped to deny the authority of the bank to make such payments; but, if he has exercised proper and reasonable care to make the examination or in the selection of an agent to do so, he cannot be held responsible for the dishonest acts of an agent or employé. [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Banks and Banking, Cent. Dig. §§ 398405, 300; Dec. Dig. §§ 138, 151.*] 2 BANK AND BANKING (§ 138*)-RELATION BETWEEN BANK AND DEPOSITORLIABILITY OF Bank for UNAUTHORIZED PAYMENTS. Plaintiff, a milling company, in the course of its business received from customers a large number of checks and drafts which it was its custom to deposit with defendant bank for credit to its account after their indorsement by an employé in a form agreed upon. Instead of depositing certain of such checks and drafts, the employé obtained cash for them from defendant, a portion of which he embezzled. Such checks and drafts were not entered upon plaintiff's books when received, that matter being in charge of the same employé; but in some cases he afterward entered the credit to the customer, using a part of the proceeds of a larger check or draft to cover the previous embezzlement. These checks and drafts were necessarily not shown on the bank passbooks nor in the bank's statements, nor did they appear on plaintiff's books, and the fact of their receipt was only ascertained by plaintiff by writing to its customers. The first of them were so cashed by the employé, some two years before the last. Held, that under the circumstances plaintiff was not negligent in failing to sooner discover and notify defendant of the transactions and was not estopped to recover from defendant the amount of its loss; it being For other cases see same topic & § NUMBER in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes 182 F.-1 found by the jury that defendant was not authorized to make the pay ments to the employé. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Banks and Banking, Cent. Dig. §§ 398405; Dec. Dig. § 138.*] In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western Division of the Western District of Washington. Action by the Tacoma Mill Company against the National Bank of Commerce of Tacoma, Washington. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant broigs error. Affirmed. The plaintiff in error was the defendant below, and the Tacoma Mill Company the plaintiff. The action was instituted to recover moneys alleged to have been wrongfully paid to one F. Pinkham upon certain checks and drafts of which the mill company was the owner. The mill company had for a long time deposited its moneys, checks, and drafts with the bank, and had kept a deposit account with it. The complaint, among other things, sets out: That, for the purpose of authorizing the payment of money to plaintiff, the bank required plaintiff to file and deposit with it plaintiff's authorized signature, which was, when filed, in form as follows: "Tacoma Mill Company. By Chas. E. Hill, Resident Manager, F. Pinkham, Accountant." That said signature was at all times on file with the bank, but that, upon each occasion of the temporary absence from the city of Tacoma of either the said Charles E. Hill or F. Pinkham, a letter was written by plaintiff to the defendant bank notifying the bank of such contemplated absence, and giving the name and signature of the person who would be substituted for such absentee. That plaintiff's customers in different states and countries were accustomed to send their checks drawn upon the banks with which they did business, payable to the order of plaintiff, which checks plaintiff deposited with the bank. That, for the purpose of indorsing such checks for deposit, plaintiff and the bank adopted a stamp bearing the legend, "Pay to the order of Nat'l Bank of Commerce, Tacoma Mill Company, By —, Cashier." and this legend was stamped upon the back of said checks and signed in the blank space provided therefor "F. Pinkham." That thereupon the checks would be delivered to the bank, and the bank would credit deposit account of plaintiff and proceed to collect the checks; but if any of them were not honored the amount thereof would be charged back to such account. That plaintiff, in the course of its business, received a large number of checks, among others certain checks which are particularly specified. That said checks, on or about the date of their receipt by plaintiff, were duly indorsed for the purpose of deposit, in the customary manner, by said F. Pinkham, and were presented to the bank, but that the bank, instead of placing the amount of such checks to the credit of plaintiff in its deposit account, did, without the authority of plaintiff, deliver and turn over to Pinkham the amount thereof in coin or currency. That thereafter, to wit, about September 1, 1908, Pinkham absconded without having paid to plaintiff the moneys thus received from the bank. And that the defendant bank has collected the amount of such checks, and has failed to account to plaintiff therefor. The answer sets up that those certain checks described in the complaint were presented by Pinkham to the bank, in the usual course of business, stamped with the specified legend and signed by the said F. Pinkham, that the defendant did pay the amounts of said checks in cash to Pinkham, and that said Pinkham was fully authorized, and held out by plaintiff as authorized, to cash said checks and receive the money therefor, and defendant denies that such checks were duly indorsed for the purpose of deposit, or that they were paid without authority of plaintiff. For a further defense, it is alleged, in effect, that all deposits made by Pinkham as cashier of plaintiff were entered in a passbook furnished by defendant to plaintiff; that said passbook was balanced monthly, and settlements of said account were made during the time that said checks were cashed; that, had Pinkham dealt with said funds or checks in an unauthorized manner, plaintiff, by the exercise of ordinary care in its business and in the examination of said monthly settlements, could and would For other cases see same topic & § NUMBER in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes |