Cecil Bank v. President of the Farmers Bank

Bartol, J., after stating the facts of the case (ante pp. 148-150,) delivered the opinion of this Court as follows: • ' The third prayer will be considered first. This presents the question of the effect of the words, “for collection,” in the endorsement made by the plaintiff to J. Lee & Co. In our opinion, the legal import and effect of such endorsement, was to notify the defendants, to whom the draft was sent by Lee & Co. for collection, that the plaintiff was owner, and J. Lee & Co. merely agents for collection; and with such notice the defendants would have no right, as against the plaintiff, to detain the pro ¹⁵⁵ ceeds for the general balance of their accoixnt against J. Leo & Co. This principle was distinctly decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Bank of the Metropolis vs. The New England Bank, 6 Howard, 212 . In that case the New England Bank was plaintiff, the Bank of the Metropolis was defendant, while the Commonwealth Bank stood towards them in the same position here occupied by J. Lee & Co. In stating the law in the form of an instruction, proper to be given to the jury, the Court say, page 221: “If upon the whole evidence before them, the jury should find that the Bank of the Metropolis, at the time of the mutual dealings between them, had notice that the Commonwealth Bank had no interest in the bills and notes in question, and that it transmitted them for collection, merely as agent, then the Bank of the Metropolis was not entitled to retain against the New England Bank for the general balance of the account with the Commoiiweath Bank.” In that oase the notice was a fact to be found by the jury from the proof in the cause; in this case, as we