103 Wash. 478 | Wash. | 1918
— Plaintiff, a city of the fourth class, brought this action to recover the possession of.certain improvement district warrants. The trial resulted in a judgment for the defendants, and the plaintiff appeals.
Briefly, the facts are: Certain improvement district warrants, all of which read “Pay to the order of,” issued by appellant in 1911, were presented by
The sole question for determination is whether the respondents, having acquired the warrants in good faith as security for the loans from one having rightful possession of them, had a superior title thereto to that of the appellant:
There is no substantial distinction between this case and the case of Fidelity Trust Co. v. Palmer, 22 Wash. 473, 61 Pac. 158, 59 Am. St. 953. In that case the plaintiff sued to recover the value of a city warrant which had been delivered to an attorney to be used as evidence in a case then pending in the superior court. The attorney, instead of returning the same to his principal,, sold it to the defendant, who paid value therefor. At the conclusion of the evidence in that .case for the plaintiff, the trial court, upon defendant’s motion, directed a judgment in his favor. The purchaser there, as here, acquired the warrant in good •faith and for a valuable consideration. It was there !said:
“Appellant contends that such a warrant is not a negotiable instrument, but is intended as a' mere voucher of the city treasurer when paid. The great
Upon the authority of that case, the judgment in this case will he affirmed.
Fullerton and Parker, JJ., concur.