237 Mass. 89 | Mass. | 1921
One John S. Pitta, treasurer of the plaintiff, on February 2, 1914, deposited money of the association with the defendant, stating that he desired to draw checks against the same. On the signature card he wrote the name of the plaintiff as “M. A. P. Association;” and the “duly authorized signatures, which you will recognize in the payment of funds or the transaction of other business on our account” was stated to be “John S. Pitta, Treas.” During the following eleven months many checks were drawn against this account. Eight of these were signed “M. A. P. Association, John S. Pitta, Treasurer;” and twenty-three others were drawn by said John S. Pitta, Treasurer. About January 3, 1915, one Leonard A. Correa Azevedo was elected treasurer of the plaintiff association, and informed the defendant that he desired to keep an account in the bank in the same way that it had been kept by his predecessor. A similar signature card was filled out and signed, Azevedo writing the name “Madeiran Alliance Protective Ass.,” and, as the duly authorized
Azevedo, who deposited and drew the plaintiff’s money, was • in fact the duly elected and acting treasurer of the association. When the account was opened the defendant was directed to recognize "Leonard A. Correa Azevedo, Treasurer” as the duly authorized signature, in the payment of funds on the plaintiff’s account. The plaintiff never notified the bank of any limitation, by by-law or otherwise, on the treasurer’s authority to draw the money which he deposited. On the contrary for about a year checks had been drawn upon the plaintiff’s account, by the former treasurer Pitta and by Azevedo; and all had been paid without any objection on the part of the association. The defendant was justified in assuming that the treasurer Azevedo was authorized to draw checks against the account of the plaintiff. Horgan v. Morgan, 233 Mass. 381, 385, and cases cited.
It is urged that the counter check as drawn was not in form the check of the plaintiff. The signature thereon indicated that Azevedo was signing as treasurer and on behalf of the Madeiran Association. Under the negotiable instrument law, R. L. c. 73, § 37, it would not bind him personally if he was duly authorized to sign checks for the association, and intended to exercise the authority at this time. Jump v. Sparling, 218 Mass. 324. Carpenter v. Farnsworth, 106 Mass. 561. It is agreed that the defendant, “up to and including said January 22, 1915, had had no notice either written or oral from the plaintiff or any person acting for it, as to how its checks were to be signed, drawn or paid, other
This conclusion renders it unnecessary to consider St. 1912, c. 277, § 1, with reference to the plaintiff’s failure to notify the defendant within a year that the check was drawn without authority. In accordance with the report judgment is to be entered for the defendant.
So ordered.