{ "id": 8565544, "name": "NATIONWIDE HOMES OF RALEIGH, N. C., INC. v. FIRST-CITIZENS BANK AND TRUST COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Nationwide Homes of Raleigh, N. C., Inc. v. First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co.", "decision_date": "1964-05-20", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "79", "last_page": "82", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "262 N.C. 79" } ], "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": "186 S.E. 362", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "210 N.C. 244", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625545 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/210/0244-01" ] }, { "cite": "113 P. 2d 483", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "139 S.W. 2d 507", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 1882573, 8735919 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mo/344/1067-01", "/mo/345/1151-01" ] }, { "cite": "112 S.E. 30", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "183 N.C. 534", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8657176 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/183/0534-01" ] }, { "cite": "154 S.E. 54", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "199 N.C. 103", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8595273 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/199/0103-01" ] }, { "cite": "111 S.E. 516", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "183 N.C. 315", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656096 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/183/0315-01" ] }, { "cite": "120 Fed. 526", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "case_ids": [ 3821464 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f/120/0526-01" ] }, { "cite": "138 So. 161", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So.", "case_ids": [ 10026441 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/so/138/0161-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 S.E. 2d 653", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "239 N.C. 560", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627863 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/239/0560-01" ] }, { "cite": "55 S.E. 296", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "142 N.C. 377", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652118 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/142/0377-01" ] }, { "cite": "93 S.E. 849", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "174 N.C. 349", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11253842 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/174/0349-01" ] }, { "cite": "129 S.E. 583", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "190 N.C. 863", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8618431 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/190/0863-01" ] }, { "cite": "11 S.E. 2d 307", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "218 N.C. 433", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8620505 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/218/0433-01" ] }, { "cite": "64 S.E. 2d 837", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "233 N.C. 585", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8613814 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/233/0585-01" ] }, { "cite": "105 S.E. 2d 193", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "249 N.C. 72", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8608055 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/249/0072-01" ] }, { "cite": "111 S.E. 2d 856", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "251 N.C. 655", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626883 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/251/0655-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 471, "char_count": 7962, "ocr_confidence": 0.565, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.3718944793939245e-07, "percentile": 0.6384557555286042 }, "sha256": "b60251af9166eff6b0732cbd3d74a6c370c86d4b2a9202dbbac057e068d10b77", "simhash": "1:5a40847d25cf20f3", "word_count": 1347 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:57:24.361559+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "NATIONWIDE HOMES OF RALEIGH, N. C., INC. v. FIRST-CITIZENS BANK AND TRUST COMPANY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "RodmaN, J.\nViewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the evidence is sufficient to establish these facts: Prior to August 7, 1961, plaintiff had no deposit with defendant. On that date S. T. Currin, Jr., plaintiff\u2019s agent, deposited with defendant $2,000. The deposit was made in plaintiff\u2019s name. The funds deposited were plaintiff\u2019s. When the account was opened, Currin delivered to defendant a document -captioned \u25a0 \u201cAUTHORIZING RESOLUTION\u201d which stated plaintiff\u2019s Board of Directors, on August 1, 1961, adopted a resolution authorizing S. T. Currin, Jr., its Vice-President, \u201cto sign checks against funds of the corporation in First Citizens Bank & Trust Company.\u201d The document was signed by S. T. Currin, Jr. who affixed after his name the title \u201cVice-President.\u201d It purported to be signed by George Coleman, having the title of Secretary. Coleman was plaintiff\u2019s secretary, but his name purporting to certify the adoption of the resolution was a forgery. Currin from time to time made deposits to plaintiff\u2019s credit. The aggregate of the deposits between August 7, 1961 and December 20, 1961 was $13,956.45. Checks drawn by Currin on the account reduced it to $60.93 on December 28, 1961. Checks aggregating $5,292.76 drawn by Currin and charged to the account were for \u201cthe ultimate benefit of plaintiff.\u201d On February 22, 1962 the account had been reduced to thirty eight cents. Plaintiff first discovered that Currin had made deposits with, and drawn checks on, plaintiff\u2019s account the latter part of December 1961. Plaintiff then notified defendant that Currin had no authority to deposit or draw checks. The parties stipulated: \u201cAll checks drawn on the subject account are forgeries committed by S. T. Currin, Jr. and are not checks or drafts of plaintiff.\u201d\nThe admission that funds were deposited with defendant in plaintiff\u2019s name placed the burden on it to show payment of the debt so created. Schwabenton v. Bank, 251 N.C. 655, 111 S.E. 2d 856; Finance Company v. McDonald, 249 N.C. 72, 105 S.E. 2d 193; Joyce v. Sell, 233 N.C. 585, 64 S.E. 2d 837; Arnold v. Trust Company, 218 N.C. 433, 11 S.E. 2d 307; Boney v. Bank, 190 N.C. 863, 129 S.E. 583; Bank v. Thompson, 174 N.C. 349, 93 S.E. 849; Yarborough v. Trust Company, 142 N.C. 377, 55 S.E. 296.\nOne who deals with an agent must, to protect himself, ascertain the extent of the agent\u2019s authority. Edgewood Knoll Apartments v. Braswell, 239 N.C. 560, 80 S.E. 2d 653. The principal is of course bound when he expressly authorizes his agent to act. Here the stipulation that Currin forged the checks negates express authority to draw on the bank account; but a principal may be bound even though the agent has not been expressly authorized to act if the nature and extent of his duties fairly implies the authority to act; if the principal has invested the agent with the apparent authority to act he will be bound. G.S. 55-36 (e); Robinson\u2019s North Carolina Corporation Law & Practice, p. 274.\nThe mere fact that an agent makes deposits to the credit of his principal is not of itself sufficient to imply authority to draw checks on the account. Boney v. Bank, supra; Pelican Well, Tool & Supply Company v. Sabine State Bank & Trust Company, 138 So. 161; Brown v. Daugherty, 120 Fed. 526; 1 Morse on Banks and Banking, (6 Ed.) 723-4.\nDefendant alleged, as justification for paying the checks, the fact that Currin had full and complete charge of plaintiff\u2019s affairs in the Raleigh area. Plaintiff alleged that Currin was not in fact its vice-president. It describes him as \u201can employee.\u201d No evidence was offered with respect to the kind of business which the plaintiff did, the scope of the business, the necessity for a bank account, Currin\u2019s title, if any, or the duties which he was to perform.\nThe descriptive words \u201cemployee\u201d or \u201cagent\u201d are not, standing alone, sufficient to establish implied or apparent authority to draw checks on their employer\u2019s bank account. Goodloe v. Bank, 183 N.C. 315, 111 S.E. 516. The authority of a general agent is broader. Lumber Company v. Elias, 199 N.C. 103, 154 S.E. 54; Strickland v. Kress, 183 N.C. 534, 112 S.E. 30; James H. Forbes Tea & Coffee Company v. Baltimore Bank, 139 S.W. 2d 507; Safeway Stores v. King Lumber Company, 113 P. 2d 483.\nDid the plaintiff lead defendants to believe Currin had authority to draw checks by failing to inform defendant when notice was brought home to it by the return of checks drawn by Currin in payment of admitted obligations of plaintiff? Defendant so alleges, but it offered no proof to support its allegation. None of the checks were in evidence. How many checks were drawn? When were they paid? When were they returned to plaintiff? There is no evidence on which to base an answer to these questions. The burden was on defendant to show plaintiff\u2019s recognition of Currin\u2019s authority to write checks.\nSimilarly the burden was on defendant, in order to avail itself of the provisions of G.S. 53-52, to show when the checks were returned to plaintiff. Greensboro Ice & Fuel Company v. Security National Bank, 210 N.C. 244, 186 S.E. 362; Schwabenton v. Security National Bank of Greensboro, supra. The evidence merely shows that some checks had been returned prior to December 28, 1961 when plaintiff challenged defendant\u2019s right to debit its account. Only those returned more than 60 days prior to the protest are proper credits under the statute.\nThe judgment of nonsuit is\nReversed.", "type": "majority", "author": "RodmaN, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Yarborough, Blanchard & Tucker for plaintiff.", "Mordecai, Mills and Parker for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "NATIONWIDE HOMES OF RALEIGH, N. C., INC. v. FIRST-CITIZENS BANK AND TRUST COMPANY.\n(Filed 20 May, 1964.)\n1. Banks and Banking \u00a7 10\u2014\nWhere a bank admits the deposit of funds the burden is on the bank to show satisfaction of the debt so created.\nS. Principal and Agent \u00a7 5\u2014\nA party relying upon the authority of an agent to act for his principal must ascertain the extent of such agent\u2019s authority, but the principal is liable not only for acts expressly authorized but also for acts within the apparent scope of the authority with which the principal has clothed the agent. G.S. 55-36(e).\n3. Banfcs and Banking \u00a7 10\u2014\nAn agent making a deposit does not have implied authority to draw checks on the account.\n4. Same\u2014\nWhere a bank admits deposits and disbursements of the funds on cheeks drawn by the agent who made the deposits but offers no evidence of valid authority of the agent to draw checks on the account or of apparent authority of the agent by showing when the depositor first had notice of the payment of checks drawn by the agent so as to establish the depositor\u2019s failure to object within a reasonable time thereafter, nonsuit in the depositor\u2019s action against the bank is error.\n5. Same.\nG.S. 53-52 entitles a bank to credit for forged or unauthorized withdrawals by an agent of the depositor only for those checks received by the depositor in its bank statement for more than sixty days without giving notice to the bank that the withdrawals were not authorized.\nAppeal from Olive, Emergency J., First November Regular Civil Session 1963 WaKe.\nPlaintiff seeks to recover $8,663.69 wrongfully charged to its account. It alleges these charges were made on checks signed in its name by its agent, S. T. Currin, Jr., who was without authority to draw on funds deposited in plaintiff\u2019s name.\nDefendant denied liability. It alleged: Currin was in full and complete charge of all of plaintiff\u2019s business in the Raleigh area. He had implied and apparent, if not actual, authority to draw checks on plaintiff\u2019s account. Plaintiff negligently failed to notify it that Currin was not authorized to draw checks on its account when it knew, or should have known, that he was doing so. It pleaded the provisions of G.S. 53-52 and a lapse of 60 days between the return of the checks and plaintiff\u2019s claim of forgery.\nAt the conclusion of plaintiff\u2019s evidence defendant\u2019s motion for non-suit was allowed. Plaintiff excepted and appealed.\nYarborough, Blanchard & Tucker for plaintiff.\nMordecai, Mills and Parker for defendant." }, "file_name": "0079-01", "first_page_order": 123, "last_page_order": 126 }