132 Iowa 248 | Iowa | 1906
The facts necessary to an understanding of this case are substantially as follows: The defendant Scruby was at one time the secretary and general manager of the Cereal Refund and Brokerage Company, a corporation, which did its banking business with the plaintiff. By virtue of an arrangement with Scruby, the bank honored the company’s checks, within certain limits, whether it had a balance on hand or not. On or about the 22d of August, 1903, Scruby resigned, but before finally leaving the office
While conceding the general rule to be that money paid by mistake may be recovered in an action at law, the appellant contends that the payment of negotiable paper forms an exception to the general rule, and that this case falls within such exception. It may also be conceded that, where negotiable paper is paid by mistake while in the hands of a bona fide purchaser, the amount so paid cannot be recovered of the party to whom it is paid. Bank v. Bank, 107 Iowa, 327. The difficulty with the appellant’s claim is that the record abundantly shows that the Citizens’ National Bank was not such a holder, and that the suit is not against the bank. Scruby issued the check for the Cereal Refund and Brokerage Company knowing that its account with the plaintiff was overdrawn, and that the bank could at any time refuse to further honor its checks while such condition
The cases cited and relied upon by the appellant are not in conflict with the views here expressed. They are: Bank v. Bank, 74 Fed. 276 (20 C. C. A. 181); Bank v. Swift, 70 Md. 515 (17 Atl. 336); Bank v. Devenish, 15 Colo. Sup. 229 (25 Pac. 177); Bank v. Burkham, 32 Mich. 329; Bank v. Marshalltown, 107 Iowa, 327; Bank v. Berrall, 70 N. J. Err. & App. 757 (58 Atl. 189).
Many other matters are presented and argued by the appellee, but in view of our holding on the main proposition they need not be further noticed.
The motion to strike parts of the appellant’s additional abstract and the motion to strike all of the evidence abstracted by the appellant are both overruled. The judgment is affirmed.