Johnson v. All Night & Day Bank

In Johnson v. All Night & Day Bank (1911) 17 Cal.App. 571, the plaintiff sued to recover the amount of a sight draft which was drawn by him on a South Dakota bank and was endorsed and delivered to All Night & Day Bank with instructions to collect the money and pay it to plaintiff. All Night & Day Bank's defense was that when plaintiff delivered the draft, he deposited it for collection to the credit of another account-holder, Dixon, so that All Night & Day collected the money and paid it to Dixon. Judgment was entered for All Night & Day. The Court of Appeal found the evidence insufficient to support the verdict. After a detailed review of the evidence All Night & Day presented, that Court found that the evidence showed that All Night & Day accepted the check on an agreement to pay the money to plaintiff, and that there were no instructions to pay it to Dixon's credit. It was in that context that the Court spoke of intent, noting that "While it is true that a negotiable instrument may be transferred by delivery, if the intent so to transfer is made apparent, there is nothing in this record to show any such intent upon the part of plaintiff, or any agreement with reference to the transfer of the draft."