Banks and banking — Checks — Payee — Endorsement — Agency — Pleadings — Rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defense.
Where, from the pleadings, it appeared that the A company, in payment of an account due plaintiff, the B company, delivered its check payable to the order of "B company, C, Secretary" drawn on X bank; and that C, who was secretary of plaintiff and teller for the defendant, the Y bank, endorsed the check exactly as written, cashed it for himself at defendant bank and kept the proceeds; a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense was properly discharged since, within the limitation of the pleadings, the evidence could establish that in whatever wrong he committed C was acting as agent of plaintiff and not of defendant.
Argued April 13, 1944.
PER CURIAM, April 18, 1944:
Plaintiff has appealed from an order of the court below refusing to enter judgment in its favor for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
The order is affirmed on the opinion of Judge O'TOOLE.