No. 83-8157.United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
March 23, 1984.
Robert B. Wedge, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellant.
Robert J. Grayson, Marietta, Ga., Robert O. Fleming, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Before JOHNSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and TUTTLE, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Appellant Coulter Electronics Inc. sued the Commercial Bank of Cobb County alleging the conversion of checks made payable to Coulter. The case, involving Commercial’s culpability for crediting Coulter’s checks to an unauthorized account of a Coulter employee, was tried before a jury and a verdict was rendered for Commercial. Coulter appeals the denial of its motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We affirm. I.
[2] Coulter Electronics, Inc. is a corporation engaged in selling and servicing medical equipment throughout the country. It has an office in Marietta, Georgia. In June 1980, Rodney Binette, an employee of Coulter, opened a sole proprietorship account at Commercial Bank in the name of Coulter Electronics. Coulter did not authorize the opening of the account. Binette then began to deposit checks belonging to the corporation in his account. The checks, generally made payable to “Coulter Electronics,
Page 1079
Inc.”[1] were accepted by Commercial Bank upon a stamped endorsement reading “For Deposit Only, Coulter Electronics, 03-062693-01.” A total of $115,681.76 of Coulter checks were thus converted.
[3] Coulter brought this diversity suit in federal court against the various defendants[2] for the conversion of its checks. As against Commercial Bank, Coulter alleged that its actions in opening the account and crediting the checks to it were “reckless and with a total disregard for their consequences.” At trial, Coulter established a conversion of the checks under Official Ga. Code Ann. § 11-3-419(1)(c) (1982) (“An instrument is converted when . . . it is paid on a forged endorsement.”). Commercial defended itself by alleging that it acted “in good faith and in accordance with reasonable commercial standards.”[3] [4] At the close of trial, Coulter moved unsuccessfully for a directed verdict and, after the jury found for Commercial Bank,[4] sought a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. It asserts the same arguments on appeal, specifically (1) that Commercial’s acceptance of checks with forged endorsements established, as a matter of law, that it did not act in a commercially reasonable manner; and (2) that the evidence was insufficient to show that Commercial acted reasonably.[5] II.[5] A. Was Commercial Bank’s Conduct Unreasonable As a Matter
[6] of Law?
[7] Coulter asserts that when Commercial accepted checks made payable to “Coulter Electronics, Inc.” upon endorsements reading simply “Coulter Electronics,” it behaved unreasonably as a matter of law and therefore could not assert a defense of commercial reasonableness. Coulter relies principally on National Bank of Georgia v. Refrigerated Transport Co., 147 Ga. App. 240, 248 S.E.2d 496 (1978), in which the Georgia court upheld a grant of judgment n.o.v. to a party that had sued a bank for converting checks with unauthorized endorsements.[6]
Page 1080
260 S.E.2d 765 (1979), the court held that a bank could raise the commercial reasonableness defense, despite the presence of irregular endorsements on checks it accepted for deposit. I Trust Co. of Georgia Bank v. Port Terminal Warehousing Co., 153 Ga. App. 735, 266 S.E.2d 254 (1980), the court limited National Bank of Georgia to its facts and interpreted the grant of judgment n.o.v. in that case as relating to the inadequacy of the bank’s evidence on commercial reasonableness rather than a ruling that it could not, as a matter of law, plead the reasonableness defense. The court in Trust Co. of Georgia Bank concluded as follows:
[9] 266 S.E.2d at 258. [10] In this case, where the variance between the payee and the endorsement was so small,[7] it was not error for the district court to reject Coulter’s contention that Commercial Bank’s acceptance of the checks was, as a matter of law, commercially unreasonable. [11] B. Was There Sufficient Evidence to Support CommercialReasonable commercial standards and whether those standards have been met under the circumstances are, in the first instance, questions of fact. . . . We believe the true rule is whether a reasonable man in accordance with reasonable commercial standards would be put on notice of some impropriety appearing either from the form of the instrument and its endorsements or from knowledge of facts outside the instrument itself.
[12] Bank’s Claim That It Acted Reasonably?
[13] Coulter moved for directed verdict and judgment n.o.v. on the additional ground that the uncontradicted evidence failed to support the jury’s verdict that Commercial Bank acted reasonably in accepting checks with improper endorsements for deposit. The standard in the circuit for ruling on such motions was discussed in Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365 (5th Cir. 1969),[8]
[14] Id. at 374. [15] There was substantial testimony before the jury that Commercial Bank’s actions were commercially reasonable. While the presence of conflict in the testimony does suggest that the jury could have resolved the ultimate question in a different way, we do not believe that the evidence was so one-sided as to compel the grant of a directed verdict or a judgment n.o.v. [16] For the foregoing reasons, the jury verdict in Commercial Bank’s favor is [17] AFFIRMED.On motions for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the Court should consider all of the evidence — not just that evidence which supports the non-mover’s case — but in the light and with all reasonable inferences most favorable to the party opposed to the motion. If the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the Court believes that reasonable men could not arrive at a contrary verdict, granting of the motion is proper. On the other hand, if there is substantial evidence opposed to the motions, that is, evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions, the motions should be denied, and the case submitted to the jury.
were very noticeable. A collection agency, United Account Systems, obtained checks payable to Refrigerated Transport Co. and deposited them into its own corporate checking account. Several types of endorsements were used on the checks: one was stamped “For deposit to the account of UAS” and several others were stamped with typewritten or handwritten labels suggesting that UAS was an agent for RTC.
Page 1489