MADILL STATE BANK v. WEAVER

MADILL STATE BANK v. WEAVER
1915 OK 158
154 P. 478
56 Okla. 183
Case Number: 3732
Decided: 04/13/1915
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

MADILL STATE BANK
v.
WEAVER.

Syllabus

¶0 1. BANKS AND BANKING--Checks--Charge Against Deposit. A bank may charge to the account of a depositor the checks of a third party, not purporting to be drawn in behalf of such depositor nor against such account, only upon the actual direction of the depositor.
2. PRINCIPAL AND AGENT--Acts Susceptible of Ratification. The rule as to "ratification" is applicable only where the act alleged to have been ratified by another purported to have been for or in behalf of such other.
3. ESTOPPEL--Estoppel in Pais--Silence. Only where the conduct of one who kept silent when he should have spoken has misled another or prejudicially affected another's conduct may the latter successfully plead an estoppel in pais against the former.

Kennamer & Coakley and McReynolds & Hay, for plaintiff in error.
Franklin & March, for defendant in error.

THACKER, C.

¶1 A bank may charge to the account of a depositor the checks of a third party, not purporting to be drawn by such depositor nor against such account, only upon the actual direction of the depositor. Seaboard National Bank v. Bank of America, 193 N.Y. 26, 85 N.E. 829, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 499; Critten v. Chemical Nat. Bank, 171 N.Y. 219, 63 N.E. 969, 57 L. R. A. 529. The defendant bank could not prevail in this case upon the ground of a "ratification," for the obvious reason that there is no evidence whatever so much as tending to prove that plaintiff's husband or his partner acted or pretended to act as the agent or representative of the plaintiff in respect to the checks drawn by said partner or to the charging of the same to her account. Virginia Pocahontas Coal Co. v. Lambert, 107 Va. 368, 58 S.E. 561, 122 Am. St. Rep. 860, 13 Ann. Cas. 277; Linn v. Alameda Min. & Mill Co., 17 Idaho 45, 104 P. 668; Stanton v. Granger, 125 A.D. 174, 109 N.Y.S. 134; Austin v. Jones, 148 Ala. 659, 41 So. 408; Backhaus v. Buells, 43 Ore. 558, 72 P. 976, 73 P. 342. The defendant bank does not appear to have known or to have assumed that plaintiff was apprised of its practice of charging the partner's checks to her account; and it cannot prevail upon the ground of estoppel, because it was not misled or affected by her silence, but apparently acted independently of her knowledge and silence. Bragdon v. McShea, 26 Okla. 35, 107 P. 916; Rogers v. Portland & B. St. Ry., 100 Me. 86, 60 A. 713, 70 L. R. A. 574; Dye v. Crary, 13 N.M. 439, 85 P. 1038, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1130; Williams v. Neely, 134 F. 1, 67 C. C. A. 171, 69 L. R. A. 232; Richards v. Shepherd, 159 Ala. 663, 49 So. 251. For the reasons stated, the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

¶2 By the Court: It is so ordered.