91 Wash. 621 | Wash. | 1916
Lead Opinion
Action upon agreed facts. Prior to September 17, 1914, S. W. Bugbee was employed by the appellant company as a teamster in some construction work in Pacific and Lewis- counties. Upon that day, there was delivered to him a voucher check reading as follows:
Hans Pederson Construction Co. No. 794
Seattle, Washington.
Contract at Doty, Washington. Date 9-17, 1914.
This certifies that S. W. Bugbee pay roll account No. 399 has worked as Teaming at 3, from 8-20, 1914, to 9-31, 1914. Total...... days and 914 hours, at the rate of 60c per hr.
Amount .............................................. $548 40
Deductions—
Board .*.................................... $7 00
Commissary ............................... 60
Hospital ...........................................
Miscellaneous ......................................
Cash on account . ’.......................... 310 67
Total deductions ................................ 318 27
Due ............................................ $230 13
Camp No. 3,
Doty, Wash.
Payable at
Raymond Trust Co., Bankers,
Raymond, Washington.
for Two Hundred and Thirty and 13-100 Dollars. (Not valid over One Hundred and Fifty Dollars.)
S. W. Bugbee, J. H. Barnes,
Employee Superintendent
J. W. Penfield, Timekeeper
This time check must be presented at once.
Bugbee took this check to St. Johns, Oregon, a suburb of Portland, and on September £1, cashed it at the respondent bank. Respondent indorsed the instrument to the First National Bank of Portland on the same day, and on the next day the Portland bank indorsed it and sent it for collection to the National Bank of Commerce, at Seattle. On September £3, the National Bank of Commerce indorsed it and sent it to its correspondent bank at Raymond, Washington. On September £4, an endeavor was made to present it for payment, but the Raymond Trust Company had, on September £3, closed its doors and suspended business, having at the time on deposit to the credit of appellant a sum in excess of $3,000. For sometime prior to this, the Raymond Trust Company had been in the habit of cashing similar checks of appellant when presented, and had, in the course of such business, cashed similar ones for Bugbee. On the same day Bug-bee received the check in question, he also received from appellant a check identical, except as to amount, which was indorsed by him arid deposited with the First National Bank of Portland on September 19. This check was sent by the Portland bank to Raymond, and was paid on the £lst. It is admitted that, had the check in question been presented prior to the failure of the trust company, it would also have been paid.
From the language of the trial judge in deciding the case below, it is apparent that he was of the opinion that, because of the use of the words “payable at Raymond Trust Company,” there was no legal obligation on the part of the trust company to pay the sum named in the instrument. It is not essential that such an obligation should be created in order to make the instrument a check. The giving of a check is not the creation of an obligation, but is merely the admission by the drawer of the existence of an obligation to pay a certain sum of money. It imposes no obligation on the drawee to
The findings are further to the effect that an account was stated between Bugbee and appellant in the sum of $230.13, which appellant promised to pay, and that respondent became the owner of this account through assignment from Bugbee.
Section 3392, Rem. & Bal. Code (P. C. 367 § 1), provides that an instrument to be negotiable must contain an unconditional promise to pay. Section 3394 (P. C. 357 § 5), provides that the promise to pay is unconditional though coupled with “a statement of the transaction which gives rise to the instrument.” Section 3477 provides:
“Where the instrument is made payable at a bank it is equivalent to an order to the bank to pay the same for the account of the principal debtor thereon.”
It is clear to us that this instrument is a check. The addition of a statement of the transaction out of which the indebtedness arose destroys neither its character as a check nor its negotiability. Under § 3477 (P. C. 357 § 173), the use of the words “payable at” is equivalent to an order on a bank to pay the amount called for. . The instrument being then an unconditional promise in writing to pay a sum certain by one person to another, signed by the person giving it, and made payable at a particular bank, meets every requirement of a negotiable check as contained in our negotiable instruments law.
Section 3576 (P- C. 357 § 371), provides that a check must be presented for payment within a reasonable time after it is issued or the drawer will be discharged from liability. Bugbee retained this check from the 17th to the 21st of Sep
The judgment is reversed, with instructions to enter judgment for appellant.
Mount, Chadwick, and Ellis, JJ., concur.
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting)- — In my opinion, the instrument set forth by the majority is in no sense a check within the meaning of the negotiable instruments act. Had it so been, I think the court is in error in deciding that it was not presented in time.
