Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 4.djvu/323

307 THE DOCTRINE OF PRICE v. NEAL. 307 Belgium, Switzerland, Italy, Hungary, and Russia it is unques- tioned law, that a drawee, who accepts or pays an altered bill, must honor his acceptance, and cannot recover what he has paid.^ Upon whom finally should the loss fall, when a party to a bill or note pays it to a holder, who could maintain no action against the payor, because one of the indorsements in his chain of title is a for- gery? Here, too, it may be urged, the equities are equal, and the holder, having obtained the money, should keep it. But this case differs in an important particular from all the cases hitherto con- sidered, and another principle comes into play, which overrides the rule as to equal equities. In all the other cases the bill or note, however valueless it may have been, belonged to the holder. In the case of the forged indorsement, on the other hand, the bill or note belongs, not to the holder, but to him whose name was forged as indorser. The holder, who bought the bill, was therefore guilty of a conversion, however honestly he may have acted. When he collected the bill, inasmuch as he obtained the money by means of the true owner's property, he became a constructive trustee of the money for the benefit of the latter. The true owner may there- fore recover the money as money had and received to his use.^ If he recovers in his action, the property in the bill would pass to the holder; but the bill would be of no value to him, for, if he should seek to collect it, he would be met with the defence that it had been paid to him once already. If, on the other hand, the true owner prefers to proceed on the bill against the maker or acceptor, he may do so, and the prior payment to the holder, being made to one without title, will be no bar to the action. The maker or acceptor, however, who pays to the true owner, is entitled to the bill, and should be subrogated to the owner's right to enforce the construc- tive trust against the holder, and could thereby make himself whole. Consequently, whatever course the true owner elects to pursue, the loss must ultimately fall on the holder. As a matter of pos- itive law, the maker or acceptor, who pays the holder claiming under a forged indorsement, is allowed to proceed against the latter di- rectly, without first paying the true owner.^ This, as a matter of ^ I Nouguier, Lettre de Change (4 ed.), § 325; 2 Pardessus, Cours de Dr. Comm. (3 ed.), § 506; Wachter, Wechselrecht, 481, giving the text of the commercial codes of the countries above mentioned. 2 Bobbett V. Pinkett, i Ex. Div. 368, 372; Indiana Bank v. Holtsclaw, 98 Ind. 85; Buckley v. Second Bank, 35 N. J. 400; Johnson v. First Bank, 6 Hun, 124. ^ I Ames Cas. on B. & N. 433, n. 2; Star Co. v. N. H. Bank, 60 N. H. 442; Corn