{
  "id": 8626732,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ex rel. J. W. KEEL, v. L. BRUCE WYNNE, Clerk Superior Court, Martin County; L. BRUCE WYNNE, and THE NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION",
  "name_abbreviation": "State ex rel. Keel v. Wynne",
  "decision_date": "1936-09-23",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "426",
  "last_page": "429",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "210 N.C. 426"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "22 R. I., 462",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "R.I.",
      "case_ids": [
        4895564
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ri/22/0462-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 N. C., 413",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629318
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/197/0413-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 N. C., 39",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8684085
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/91/0039-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 374,
    "char_count": 7924,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.474,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.769818418901168e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5315634231957153
    },
    "sha256": "bec386e83e5ea41810cd65f28f4aa6f3b2ac1a43eb247b7d50d228db43adb034",
    "simhash": "1:98e0e2d04a42d299",
    "word_count": 1364
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:57:05.250790+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ex rel. J. W. KEEL, v. L. BRUCE WYNNE, Clerk Superior Court, Martin County; L. BRUCE WYNNE, and THE NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clarkson, J.\nThe sole question presented on this appeal: Is the defendant liable to the plaintiff on check which was drawn payable to Harold Johnson, which was delivered by defendant to Lee Johnson, who impersonated Harold Johnson, Lee Johnson having forged the endorsement of Harold Johnson on check in the presence of plaintiff, and the plaintiff having endorsed said check by writing on same \u201cO.K., J. W. Keel,\u201d and the check bearing on its face the language, \u201cCourt order received from M. L. Bunting to Branch Banking & Trust Company, Williamston, North Carolina\u201d? We think not.\nIn R. R. v. Kitchin, 91 N. C., 39 (44), the following principle is laid down in this jurisdiction: \u201cWhere one of two persons must suffer loss by the fraud or misconduct of a third person, he who first reposes the confidence, or by his negligent conduct made it possible for the loss to occur, must bear the loss.\u201d Bank v. Liles, 197 N. C., 413. The plaintiff invokes the above rule in this action, but we do not think it applicable to the facts agreed upon in this case.\nLee Johnson was a brother of Harold Johnson, but impersonated his brother to obtain the check. The check was not made payable to Lee Johnson, but to Harold Johnson, and on the check was \u201cCourt order received from M. L. Bunting.\u201d To obtain the money on the check it was necessary that Harold Johnson endorse same. This he did not do. Lee Johnson represented himself to J. W. Keel, the plaintiff, to be Harold Johnson, and forged the name of Harold Johnson to the cheek in his presence \u2014 \u201cMr. Harold Johnson.\u201d J. W. Keel endorsed said check on the back, \u201cO.K., J. W. Keel.\u201d The endorsement by J. W. Keel \u201cO.K.\u201d identified the imposter and no doubt induced the bank to cash the check. Keel made no investigation, required no identification, asked no questions. On the check was \u201cCourt order received from M. L. Bunting.\u201d Keel made no inquiry as to this, but endorsed \u201cO.K.\u201d on the back of the check.\nWebster\u2019s New International Dictionary (2d Ed.) defines \u201cO.K.\u201d: \u201cCorrect; all right; endorsed or put on documents, bills, etc., to indicate approval; colloquial exc. as us.e of the approval of documents, etc.\u201d\nThe plaintiff Keel endorsed the check \u201cO.K.,\u201d viz.: \u201cCorrect, all right,\u201d without inquiry. We think that a reasonably prudent man, under the circumstances, should not have done so, and he must bear the loss. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, if plaintiff ever had any rights against defendant Wynne, the clerk, he is estopped to complain by his own negligence. Tolman v. Am. Nat. Bk., 22 R. I., 462. N. C. Code of 1935 (Michie), sec. 3003.\nThe judgment below is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clarkson, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Okas. 0. Pierce for plaintiff.",
      "Elbert 8. Peel, B. A. Qritcher, and Hugh G. Morton for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ex rel. J. W. KEEL, v. L. BRUCE WYNNE, Clerk Superior Court, Martin County; L. BRUCE WYNNE, and THE NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION.\n(Filed 23 September, 1936.)\nBills and Notes C c \u2014 Subsequent endorser held liable on check obtained by original holder by fraud and endorsed by him by forging name of payee.\nThe clerk of the Superior Court, in accordance with a court order, executed a check to the person named in the order, the check stating on its face that it was issued in compliance therewith. The brother of the payee of the check, by fraudulently representing himself to be the payee, obtained the check from the clerk, took the check to plaintiff and endorsed the check in plaintiff\u2019s presence by forging the name of his brother, whereupon plaintiff, in good faith, but without investigating the identity of the person representing himself to be the payee, endorsed the check by writing \u201cO.K.\u201d and signing his name. Upon discovery of the fraud, the clerk stopped payment on the check, and the payee bank, which had cashed the check on the strength of plaintiff\u2019s endorsement, charged the check to plaintiff\u2019s account. Beld: Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the amount of the check from the clerk individually or in his official capacity, plaintiff's negligence in endorsing the check without attempting to ascertain the identity of the person representing himself to be the payee barring any right to recover, and the principle that where one of two persons must suffer loss, the loss must be borne by him who first reposes confidence in the wrongdoer being inapplicable. N. 0. Code, 3003.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Moore, Special Judge, at April Term, 1936, of Martin.\nAffirmed.\nLee Johnson was a brother of Harold Johnson. There was in the hands of the defendant L. Bruce Wynne, clerk of the Superior Court of Martin County, the sum of $95.50 due Harold Johnson, under a court order.\nIn the agreed statement of facts are the following:\n\u201cThat on the 10th day of December, 1934, L. Bruce Wynne, clerk of the Superior Court of Martin County, North Carolina, executed the following check in words and figures as follows, to wit:\n\u201c \u2018L. Bbuce WyNNe, No. 11\nClerk of the Superior Court of Martin County.\n\u201c \u2018WilliaMstoN, N. C., December 10, 1934.\n\u201c \u2018Pay to the order of Habold Johnson.$95.50\nNinety-five and 50/100 Dollars.\n\u201c \u2018Court order received from M. L. Bunting to Branch Banking & Trust Company, Williamston, North Carolina.\nL. Beuce Wynne, C. S. C.\u2019\n\u201cThat said check was delivered by L. Bruce Wynne, clerk of the Superior Court of Martin County, to Lee Johnson, who was a brother of the payee, Harold Johnson, and who represented himself to be Harold Johnson, and whom the clerk of the Superior Court, L. Bruce Wynne, assumed was Harold Johnson.\n\u201cThat thereafter, on 11 December, 1934, Lee Johnson took the check to the office of J. W. Keel, the plaintiff, and represented himself to be Harold Johnson, payee in said check, and endorsed said check on the back of same, \u2018Mr. Harold Johnson/ in the presence of J. W. Keel, the plaintiff. Upon said representation and said endorsement, made by said Lee Johnson, Mr. J. W. Keel endorsed said check on the back of same, \u2018O.K., J. W. Keel.\u2019\n\u201cWhereupon, the amount of $95.50 was paid upon said check to Lee Johnson by Planters National Bank and Trust Company of Bocky Mount.\n\u201cThat later L. Bruce \"Wynne, clerk of the Superior Court of Martin County, upon ascertaining that Lee Johnson was not Harold Johnson, stopped payment upon said cheek at the Branch Banking & Trust Company in Williamston, North Carolina, drawee bank named in said check.\n\u201cThat upon presentation of said check to the Branch Banking & Trust Company, Williamston, North Carolina, drawee bank in said check, to wit, $95.50, together with $1.50 protest fee, was charged by the Planters National Bank and Trust Company of Rocky Mount, to the account of J. W. Keel by reason of his endorsement of said check.\n\u201cThe endorsement on said check, 'Mr. Harold Johnson,\u2019 put there by Lee Joknson in the presence of Mr. J. W. Keel, was a forgery.\n\u201cThat Lee Johnson was an imposter and an impersonator and held himself out to L. Bruce Wynne, clerk of the Superior Court of Martin County, and to J. W. Keel, plaintiff, as Harold Johnson, payee in said check.\u201d\nOn the facts agreed, the court below rendered judgment as follows: \u201cThis cause coming on to- be heard and being heard before his Honor, Clayton Moore, Special Judge, presiding at the April Term, 1936, Martin County Superior Court, and being heard upon an agreed statement of facts, which has been reduced to writing, and trial by jury being waived by all parties hereto, and the court being of the opinion that upon the agreed facts that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover: And noWj therefore, upon motion of the counsel for the defendant, it is ordered and adjudged that the plaintiff take nothing by his action, and that the plaintiff pay the costs, to be taxed by the clerk of the Superior Court of Martin County. This 14 April, 1936. Clayton Moore, Special Judge, presiding.\u201d\nTo the signing of the judgment plaintiff excepted, assigned error, and appealed to the Supreme Court.\nOkas. 0. Pierce for plaintiff.\nElbert 8. Peel, B. A. Qritcher, and Hugh G. Morton for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0426-01",
  "first_page_order": 492,
  "last_page_order": 495
}