Page images
PDF
EPUB

out further assignment. The Treasury Department therefore can grant no relief on account of the loss or theft of bonds so assigned, and will not enter caveats against their transfer, exchange, or payment even though reported lost or stolen."

Paragraph 1, extract No. 22, of paragraph 86, Treasury Circular No. 300, dated July 31, 1923, provides in part as follows:

"Registered bonds or notes assigned in blank, or bearing assignments for exchange for coupon bonds or notes without instructions restricting delivery, are in effect payable to bearer, since title thereto may pass by delivery without further assignment or indorsement. The Treasury Department can accordingly grant no relief on account of the loss or theft of bonds or notes so assigned, and will not enter caveats against their transfer, exchange, or payment, if reported lost or stolen. The Treasury Department assumes no responsibility with respect to bonds or notes so assigned, but if notified of their loss or theft will make appropriate notations on its records, and, in the event that the bonds or notes thereafter are received for transfer, exchange, or payment, may require the person presenting such bonds or notes to submit evidence showing whether or not he is a bona fide holder in due course. If it appears that the person presenting the bonds or notes is not a bona fide holder in due course, the Department may withhold transfer, exchange, and payment, and in any event it will notify the registered owner of the result of the inquiry."

Paragraph 2, extract No. 4, of paragraph 49, Treasury Circular No. 300, dated July 31, 1923, provides:

"Bonds registered in the name of a minor without more, or in the name of a minor by a natural guardian, as, for example 'John Jones, minor, by Henry Jones, natural guardian,' or in the name of a legal guardian for a minor, may be assigned for transfer or exchange into coupon bonds during minority only by the guardian legally appointed by a court of competent jurisdiction, or otherwise legally qualified, or pursuant to order or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction: Provided, however, That in cases where such bonds have been purchased by the natural guardian of the minor out of his own funds as a gift to the minor, or other

[ocr errors]

wise purchased for the benefit of the minor and registered in the name of the minor without more, or in the name of the minor by such natural guardian, as for example, John Jones, minor, by Henry Smith, guardian,' and the entire gross value of the minor's estate, both real and personal, does not exceed $500, assignments by the natural guardian for transfer or for exchange into coupon bonds may be recognized upon presentation of proof satisfactory to the Secretary of the Treasury that the proceeds of the bonds so assigned are necessary and are to be used for the support or education of the minor. (Use Form L. & C. 302.) The Secretary of the Treasury may also require in any such case a bond of indemnity with satisfactory sureties. In the event that bonds are registered in the name of a natural guardian for a minor, designated either as natural guardian or guardian, as for instance, John Jones, guardian of Henry Jones, a minor,' or 'John Jones, natural guardian of Henry Jones, a minor,' or a substantially similar form, assignments for transfer or exchange into coupon bonds by the natural guardian of the minor when executed under his representative title in the same form as set forth in the registration will be recognized by the Treasury Department without requiring proof of his appointment or authority to act: Provided, however, That no assignment by any such natural guardian to himself individually will be recognized unless accompanied by a duly authenticated copy of an order or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction specifically authorizing the assignment, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 6 hereof."

[ocr errors]

In the absence of compliance with the above Treasury regulation, the assignment of the bond by Fred Bardwell as natural guardian (of Howard Bardwell) to the Secretary of the Treasury for exchange, is invalid, for a natural guardian has, in the absence of statute, no right to the possession or control of the infant's property, personal or real. 33 Op. 197; 28 C. J. 1127 (and cases there cited).

In 33 Op. 197, 202, Attorney General Daugherty, referring to a proposed method for the redemption of United States registered bonds or notes standing in the name of a minor upon assignment by the minor himself, or by his

natural guardian in case the minor was not of sufficient competency and understanding to execute an assignment, expressed the following opinion:

"The joining of the natural guardian, such as the father or mother, in such assignments or releases would add nothing to the security furnished the Government. Natural guardians as recognized under our laws come to us as the successor of guardians by nature of the old common law. Natural guardians, as well as guardians by nature, have a right to the care, custody, control, and education of their wards. Their rights are practically the same as the right of the parent over the child, but neither the natural guardian, the guardian by nature, nor the parent has any right whatsoever to interfere with, manage, or control the property, either real or personal, of an infant.”

In some States statutes have conferred on the natural guardian the right to possession and control of the ward's property, at least where such property was derived from the guardian, but New York is not one of those States. Chase v. Ulster & D. R. Co. et al., 214 N. Y. S. 615; 215 App. Div. 581.

Notwithstanding the bond was stolen, the assignment being invalid, subsequent transferees could not obtain title as against the payee, the minor. 8 C. J. 775; Dexter Saving Bank v. Friend, 90 Fed. 703; Root v. Godard, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 12037; Hamilton Nat. Bank v. Nye, 37 Ind. App. 464; Eaton v. Berlin, 49 N. H. 219; Andover v. Grafton, 7 N. H. 298; Mechanics' Bank v. New York, etc., R. Co., 13 New York 599; Fearn v. Filica, 7 M. & G. (Eng.) 513; Wilson v. Brown, 6 Ont. App. 411.

In 8 C. J. 775, it is said:

"That a maker or an endorser of commercial paper, purporting to act in the capacity of agent, had no authority, either real or apparent, so to act, is a defense, regardless of the status of the holder." (Underscoring supplied.)

In Hamilton National Bank v. Nye, 37 Ind. App. 464, the appellee drew a check upon the Lake City Bank, payable to "Walsh, Boyle & Co., or order," and delivered the check to the agent of the payee. At the time the check was drawn the appellee was indebted to Walsh, Boyle & Co. to

the amount of the check for goods sold by the firm to him, through their traveling salesman Underhill. The check was delivered by the appellee to Underhill who, instead of sending it to the firm, as was his duty, took the check to the Indiana National Bank and wrote the words "Walsh, Boyle & Co." across the back thereof. The bank indorsed and forwarded the check to the appellant, which in due course presented the check to the Lake City Bank for payment, which was refused, of which fact appellee had notice, and the same was duly protested. The defense was that the appellant had no right to sue on the check for the reason that the payee Walsh, Boyle & Co. was the real owner, the title never having passed to appellant. In the course of its opinion the court said (pp. 466, 467):

"The facts pleaded in the answer, if true, are a bar to the action. See Bostwick v. Bryant (1888), 113 Ind. 448.

[blocks in formation]

"The maker of the check did not undertake to pay the amount of the check to any person other than Walsh, Boyle & Co., or to some person to whom this firm should order it to be paid. When the check was drawn and delivered to the firm's agent, the title was in the firm, and remained in the firm until by some act of the firm, or its authorized agent, it passed to another. An indorsement by any other person could have no effect on the firm's title. Placing the firm's name on the back of the check and delivering it to a third person would divest the firm's title and vest the title in such third person. If the agent, without the firm's knowledge, had delivered the check without any indorsement to a third person, such delivery could not effect the firm's title, but such an act could have no greater or less effect than the delivery of the check with an unauthorized indorsement.

"If appellant has any title to the check, it derived it through the Indiana National Bank. But the unauthorized indorsement and delivery of the check had no effect on the payee's title and could not therefore convey anything, as against the payee, to that bank. We have nothing to do with the respective rights of the two banks as against each other. 'The purchase of the check upon a forged or unauthorized indorsement conferred no title, and in contemplation of law

the check remained untransferred.' Indiana Nat. Bank v. Holtsclaw (1884), 98 Ind. 85. See, also Graves v. American Exchange Bank (1858), 17 N. Y. 205; Armstrong v. National Bank (1889), 46 Ohio St. 512, 22 N. E. 866, 15 Am. St. 655, 6 L. R. A. 625; Levy & Salomon v. Bank of America (1872), 24 La. Ann. 220, 13 Am. Rep. 124; Seventh Nat. Bank v. Cook (1873), 73 Pa. St. 483, 13 Am. Rep. 751; Welsh v. German American Bank (1878), 73 N. Y. 424, 29 Am. Rep. 175; National Park Bank v. Seaboard Bank (1889), 114 N. Y. 28, 20 N. E. 632, 11 Am. St. 612, note; Baldwin v. Shutter (1882), 82 Ind. 560; Citizens State Bank v. Adams (1883), 91 Ind. 280; Adams v. Citizens State Bank (1880), 70 Ind. 89; Elliott v. Armstrong (1829), 2 Blackf. 198, 211. (Underscoring supplied.)

"It is quite true it is possible that a remote indorsee might acquire a better title to a negotiable instrument, so far as available equities and defenses between the parties are concerned, than some prior indorser through whom the indorsee's title came. But the unauthorized indorsement had no effect on the payee's title to the check. The delivery of the check with the unauthorized indorsement was in effect. the delivery of the check without any indorsement, and in the latter case it is clear that the check in the hands of any one, other than the payee, would not be negotiable paper according to the custom of merchants."

These authorities clearly indicate that the United States did not undertake to pay the amount of the bond to any person other than the payee, or to some person to whom the bond might be lawfully assigned; and that a purchaser of the bond upon the invalid assignment would not get title, for in contemplation of law the bond remains untransferred and retains its character as a registered bond and the protection of registration.

Where, as here, the bond retains its character as a registered bond and the protection of registration, relief may be granted under section 3704, R. S.

In 34 Op. 262, 267, it was said:

"It is clear from the restriction contained in section 3704 that it is the purpose of the statute to grant relief only where the registered bonds retain their character as registered

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »