North British & Mercantile Ins. v. Merchants' National Bank

Plaintiff’s counsel conceded at the trial that there were returned by the defendant to it each month an average of over 600 check vouchers of an average aggregate amount of $200,000. No objection was made to the' statements returned by the defendant to plaintiff, or to the payment of the checks here in question, until the 20th of September, 1910. The fraud was discovered by a check being presented to the plaintiff’s cashier for signature, payable to the order of one Bauman." The cashier’s assistant called his attention to the fact that they had only a few days before drawn a check for some thirty-odd dollars, payable to the order of a man named Bauman. On looking at that .check they found Walker’s name indorsed on it. This resulted in an examination, and Walker’s confession also disclosed the frauds committed by Bradford. Many of the checks negotiated by him bore the indorsement of E. B. Wood. A further investigation followed, which showed that Bauman’s indorsement appeared on forty-one checks, some of which had been returned to plaintiff by the defendant "each month during 1909 and 1910, save January and March of the former year, and 87 checks which bore the indorsement of Walker, extending over the period of two years beginning July, 1908, and ending with August, 1910; that 218 checks bore the indorsement of Wood, which involved Bradford’s fraud; and that the first fraudulent check boré Bradford’s own indorsement. Had the slightest examination been made by the plaintiff of its books and the evidence in its" possession, the fraudulent acts of Bradford would have been discovered when the bank returned the first bogus check with the other vouchers. And the sarpe is true of the bogus checks returned each time when the passbook was written up. The plaintiff, however, did nothing for upwards of three years, and the result was that these two dishonest clerks

[1-3] Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that a question was presented which should have been submitted to the jury, whether the plaintiff ought to recover upon any of the checks. The relation between a depositor and a bank is well understood. It is that of debtor and creditor. By reason of this relation a reciprocal duty is imposed. A bank is bound to. know the signature of its depositors and pay out the money only on their orders. If it does otherwise, the bank, primarily, and not the depositor, must stand the loss. A bank, however, is permitted to escape liability for repayment of amounts paid out on forged, raised, or fictitious checks, by establishing that it made the payment in good faith, without negligence upon its part, and that the payment was brought about or contributed to by the negligence of the depositor; in other words, that the payment was made by reason of the neglect of the depositor to do “those things dictated by ordinary business customs and prudence and fair dealing toward the bank, which if done would have prevented the wrongdoing which resulted from their omission.” Morgan v. U. S. Mortgage & Trust Co., 208 N. Y. 218 , 101 N. E. 871 . The facts here presented demonstrate very clearly the reasonableness of this rule. Commercial transactions are now carried on largely by means of checks. The plaintiff, as indicated, used in its business at least 600 each month, aggregating in amount something like $200,000. It therefore owed a duty not only to the defendant, but, I think, to the public generally, to exercise at least reasonable care that the checks which it signed were genuine and not fictitious transactions. If it failed to do this, then it ought not to be permitted to assert their invalidity against either the bank upon which they were drawn or any one else taking them in good faith and for value. When the first fictitious check was returned, and it is not here sought to recover on that one, if an examination had been made such as ordinary prudence would have seemed to dictate, Bradford’s dishonesty would have been disclosed, and measures could have been taken would thereafter have prevented similar transactions either by him or Walker. The purpose of having the passbook written up was to ascertain what checks had been paid out and what the defendant claimed as to the plaintiff’s account.

As said in Morgan v. U. S. Mortgage & Trust Co., supra:

“When they submitted their passbook to be thus written up, they in effect called for a statement of their account as kept by the bank, and, when this was furnished to them, is it to be thought that they satisfied the requirements of common prudence and fairness to the bank by absolutely disregarding the passbook and check list which could not be easily falsified, and simply comparing a bundle of vouchers which might be much more easily manipulated by ready abstraction of vouchers? The passbook is the statement of the bank’s version of the account and the fundamental basis for comparison with the depositor’s own records. The paid checks which are returned are the vouchers of the bank for its account as written on the passbook, and, if they are to be made the medium of comparison of accounts, the depositor at least ought to endeavor to know that they tally with the passbook. Otherwise he has made no reliable comparison or verification. Therefore it seems to me that, when the appellants relied for verification merely on a comparison of vouchers without any effort to verify these by comparison with the check list or passbook,

they did not exercise reasonable methods. On the other hand, it seems to me that when, having "obtained from the bank a list of vouchers and balanced passbook which were intended to give and did give them a correct basis for comparison and verification, they disregarded these, they were guilty of such obvious oblivion of their duties that no extended argument can make plainer their negligence than does the mere recital of the facts.”

[4] In connection with the duty imposed on the plaintiff to examine the returned canceled vouchers, so that any irregularity in their issue could be at once corrected, both for" the protection of the defendant and the banking community, in general, the defendant, in August, 1909, submitted to the plaintiff for execution by it an instrument by which the defendant was authorized to deliver to the person named the plaintiff’s passbook and take his receipt for the same in the form printed on the reverse side thereof. The plaintiff, by its cashier, signed this instrument and delivered it to the defendant. This receipt was to show the balance at the close of business on the day specified, together with the list of canceled vouchers called for by the passbook, and, unless written notice to the contrary were given within 10 days from the date thereof, it was to be considered as accepted by the plaintiff as correct. Thereafter, on receipt of the passbook and vouchers, plaintiff’s representatives signed such receipt. The plaintiff, however, seeks to repudiate this agreement on the ground that the cashier had no authority from the plaintiff to sign it and that the messenger to whom the passbook and vouchers were delivered had no authority to sign such receipt. But the agreement was acted upon by both of the parties from the time of its execution until the fraudulent acts of Bradford and Walker were discovered, and during such time it was not even suggested that the cashier did not have authority to make whatever arrangements were necessary with defendant as to its banking account. It was too late for the plaintiff, after thus receiving the canceled vouchers and statement of the account as shown by them, and the same had been acted upon by plaintiff, to thereafter repudiate the transactions, especially when it appeared that all of the checks were issued under circumstances which would justify a finding that the plaintiff had neglected to take even ordinary precautions to prevent the defendant or others from being defrauded by their use.

The plaintiff was resorting to the use of checks for the purpose of doing its business, and every one of those in question bore its genuine signature. The bank, of course, was bound to know that the maker’s signature was genuine, and it is possible it was also bound to know that the indorsement on the first check was genuine; but, when no objection was made to it when returned, it had a right to treat other checks coming in as it had that one; in any event, after the statement and vouchers had been returned and no objection made within a reasonable time, then it seems to me it certainly was a question for the jury to determine whether or not the plaintiff was not bound by an implied ratification of the statements rendered. Dana v. Nat. Bank of the Republic, 132 Mass. 156 .

If the plaintiff knew of the fraud, then it was bound to inform the defendant of it. It did, in legal effect, know of it, because its own records showed it, as the slightest examination of them disclosed.

[5] But, it is said, the defendant ought not to escape liability because it received the checks for payment from other banks which are solvent, for which reason it will not be damaged. I do not think this conclusion follows. Defendant has paid the checks once, and, plaintiff having called upon it again to pay them, it has a right to resist the payment, irrespective of whether or not it may, in" case it does pay, be reimbursed by some one else. A loss has been sustained, which, if occasioned solely by plaintiff’s negligence, should be borne by it, and the defendant is in position to assert such defense—this upon the theory that one who, by his own neglect, is responsible for or the cause of a loss, should bear it instead of an innocent party. First Nat. Bank v. American Exch. Nat. Bank, 49 App. Div. 349 , 63 N. Y. Supp. 58 , affirmed 170 N. Y. 88 , 62 N. E. 1089 .

I am of the opinion that there was at least a question for the jury as to the negligence of the plaintiff that would prevent ■ a recovery. The judgment should therefore be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

INGRAHAM, P. J.,'and LAUGHLIN, J., concur.

(dissenting). The plaintiff was a depositor with the defendant and brought this action for a balance of account. What, if any, balance exists, depends upon certain checks which plaintiff claims were improperly paid by the defendant because of the alleged forgeries of the indorsements of the payees. The number of checks in dispute is 362, covering a period from August 1, 1907, to September 15, 1910. The plaintiff is an English company which maintains a principal office in the city of New York under the charge of1 a general manager, and through which plaintiff’s business, including its many agencies in the United States, is directed. During the period in question, nearly 800,000 policies were sent from the New York office to the plaintiff’s various agencies, and there was at all times outstanding on its books policies approximating 300,000 in number. When a policy was canceled before it had expired, it became necessary to pay to the holder a return premium representing the unearned portion of the original premium. The policies on account of which such payments were made amounted, during the period in question, to some hundreds of thousands. The individual amounts of the sums so returned were comparatively small; but, because of their great number, the aggregate amounted to about $90,000 a month, all of which was apparently drawn from the plaintiff’s account with the defendant. The territory in which plaintiff transacted business was divided into districts, and, when an application for a return premium was received, it would be given over to a clerk who had charge of the returns within" the district to which the policy concerned belonged, and thereupon it became his

Among the clerks employed in plaintiff’s accounting department and whose business it was to prepare vouchers and checks for return premiums were Bradford and Walker, who, when the checks in question came back into their hands duly signed, purloined them and converted their proceeds to their own use. This conversion was accomplished in the following manner: In every case, the checks represented a fictitious transaction upon which no return premium was owing by the plaintiff, and each of the checks had been procured from plaintiff by means of fictitious vouchers on the faith of which the checks were ¿igned. In some instances, the names of the payees of the checks were those of existing persons, some of whom were customers of' the plaintiff, but to whom plaintiff owed nothing, and some were personal creditors of Walker, who took this method to pay his personal debts. The remaining payees represented persons having no existence. Of the checks payable to the order of existing payees, some were in fact indorsed by such payees; but on the others the indorsements were forged. The indorsements so forged and as well the indorsements of the checks payable to nonexisting payees were made by Bradford or by Walker or by the procurement of one of them. The frauds were discovered by plaintiff, and the defendant was notified early in September, 1910. Prior to August 2, 1909, it had been defendant’s custom to return to plaintiff its passbook with canceled vouchers and to take a mere receipt for the same; but on that day defendant gave to plaintiff’s bank messenger a new form of signature card with directions to have it signed by some one duly authorized and to return the same to defendant. On one side of this card was an order designating the individual to whom defendant should deliver returned vouchers, “taking, his receipt for same in my behalf in form as on reverse hereof.” On the reverse side was printed the following form of receipt:

“New York, 190 .

“Received, from the Merchants’ National Bank of the City of New York passbook for the account of the undersigned, showing balance $ at the close of business, together with canceled vouchers called for by passbook and list of vouchers which are hereby accepted as correct and gen

uine, and the account approved as stated, unless written notice to the contrary is given within ten days from this date.”

This blank card was by the messenger delivered to Ketcham, an employé of the plaintiff with the title of cashier, and among whose duties was the making up of the daily deposits with defendant and the receipt and custody of all returned vouchers when the same were brought to plaintiff’s office by the messenger. Ketcham was not an officer of the plaintiff and his duties were clerical only. Without calling the attention of any of plaintiff’s responsible officers to the receipt of the card or to the new system of receipting for canceled vouchers which the terms of the card suggested, Ketcham filled in the name of the messenger, Thomas Baxter, as the one authorized in the future to receive from defendant and receipt for canceled vouchers, and so filled in, Ketcham signed the card in the name of the plaintiff, per “D. R. Ketcham, Cashier.” The signed card was on August 2d returned to the defendant, from which date all of plaintiff’s canceled vouchers were receipted for in the foregoing form. The fact that Ketcham had signed the card and authorized the giving of the form of receipt evidenced thereby was never brought to the knowledge of any representative of plaintiff authorized to contract in its behalf. On the trial much testimony was given both by plaintiff and defendant on the subject of plaintiff’s alleged negligence in uttering the checks and as well in failing to adopt and enforce such a system of examination or audit as was adapted to disclose the fraudulent practices of its clerks.

At the conclusion of the trial,, both sides moved to direct a verdict. Defendant’s motion having been denied, it asked to go to the jury on a variety of questions including those raised on this appeal.

An analysis of the checks as they appear in the record shows that they were drawn to the order of payees and bore indorsements which are divisible into the following classes: (a) Checks to the order of existing persons; (b) checks to the order of nonexisting persons; (c) checks of class A indorsed by the identical payees named therein; (d) checks of class A bearing forged indorsements of payees.

The plaintiff recovered on all the' checks of the several classes, on the theory that the payees’ indorsements were forgeries, and counsel so argues on this appeal. In the case of checks to the order of and indorsed by existing payees, the theory is that, as to plaintiff, they are to be regarded as forgeries because plaintiff never intended to draw checks to such payees. The bank has thus been held liable not only in the case of nonexisting payees, but also in cases of existing payees whose indorsements were genuine.

(1) No argument is necessary to show that the court erred in cases of the latter class. As to these, the bank paid according to its instructions. If plaintiff was led by fraud or mistake into unintentionally giving to the bank orders to pay to persons to whom it owed nothing, the loss should fall on plaintiff whose error caused the payments to be made.

(2) The case of nonexistent payees is apparently covered by Hartford v. Greenwich Bank, 157 App. Div. 448 , 142 N. Y. Supp. 387 , decided by this court in June last. In that case, an employe of a tea com-

“This is not strictly speaking the case of a check drawn to a fictitious or nonexistent person. * * * What we have here is a successful fraud perpetrated upon the tea company by one of its own employés, by which it was induced to believe that it owed that employé certain sums of money. The checks in suit were intended to be paid in satisfaction of this supposed debt and were in fact paid to the person for whom they were intended. No liability attaches to the bank under these circumstances.”

The minority of the court pointed out that, while the majority assumed to base their decision on the intent of the drawer, they had in fact confused the matter of such intent with that of the identity of the payee, and in working out their legal conclusion had substituted the latter for the former. The error in a result thus obtained was pointed out in Philips v. Mercantile Nat. Bank, 140 N. Y. 556 , 562, 35 N. E. 982 , 983 ( 23 L. R. A. 584 , 37 Am. St. Rep. 596 ), where Judge Gray, writing for the court, said:

“The fictitiousness of the maker’s direction to pay does not depend upon the identification of the name of the payee with some existent person, but upon the intention underlying the act of the maker in inserting the name.”

The minority in the Greenwich Bank Case placed their dissent on the ground that the indorsement of the name of the payee should be treated as a forgery, and that “the rule that a check payable to a fictitious payee is deemed payable to bearer has no application where the drawer of the. checks is not aware that the payee is fictitious.” At page 454 of 157 App. Div., at page 392 of 142 N. Y. Supp. (citing Shipman v. Bank of State of New York, 126 N. Y. 318 , 27 N. E. 371 , 12 L. R. A. 791 , 22 Am. St. Rep. 821 ). As I read the Shipman Case, it decided exactly that on a state of facts indistinguishable from those in the Greenwich Bank Case. In the Shipman Case, plaintiffs were by the fraud of their clerk induced to sign checks to various classes of fraudulent payees, including some wholly fictitious who plaintiffs were induced to believe were clients of plaintiffs, to whom the sums represented by the checks were owing. But the question would seem settled by Seaboard Nat. Bank v. Bank of America, 193 N. Y. 26 , 85 N. E. 829 , 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 499 . In that case, one Pennoclc, an employé of Babcock & Co., a depositor of the Federal Bank, presented to that bank a check purporting to have been drawn on it by

“Hence if the maker or drawer supposes the payee to be an actually existing person (as for instance, where he is induced by fraud to draw the instrument to the order of a fictitious person whom he supposes to exist), the instrument will not be payable to bearer, and no person can acquire the title thereto by delivery. And where the instrument is drawn payable at a bank, the bank cannot charge the same to the account of its customer, since the instrument is not in such case payable to bearer and the instrument is a forgery.”

The reason for the so-called “New York rule” is apparent and supports its propriety, and incidentally discloses what I deem to be the basic error of the decision in the Greenwich Bank Case. A check payable to a nonexistent person, necessarily, can never bear a genuine indorsement. Hence the drawer who is aware of such nonexistence cannot intend the check to be .indorsed by the payee named and must be taken as intending it to be payable to bearer. But, if the fact of the payee’s nonexistence is unknown to the drawer, presumably he relies on the drawee to see to it that payment is made as directed, and this casts the burden on the drawee to ascertain by identification or otherwise to whom he pays, and to pay only on a genuine indorsement. Naturally, if such an indorsement be impossible, the drawee should not pay at all.

It has been suggested that the Seaboard Bank Case is to be distinguished from that of the Greenwich Bank, because in the former the check of Babcock & Co. in exchange for which the Federal Bank issued its draft, was a forgery, but this fact the court took pains to point out (at pages 31 and 32 of 193 N. Y., 85 N. E. 829, 22 L. R. A. [N. S.] 499), was quite immaterial. The case of the Seaboard Bank was neither cited by counsel nor referred to in either of the opinions in the Greenwich Bank Case, and seems to have wholly escaped attention. If, however, it is, as I deem it to be, a controlling authority binding upon and which it was the duty of this court to follow when

(3) We have remaining, checks drawn to the order of existing payees whose indorsements were forged. This, among other points, brings directly up the question of plaintiff’s negligence, to which subject the testimony at the trial was largely directed. The bank claims that, notwithstanding it may be liable prima facie on this class of checks and as well on any of the other classes on which, as I have hereinbefore pointed out, it is similarly liable, nevertheless it was error to 'direct a verdict against it, because:

(1) As to all the checks in dispute, the question of plaintiff’s negligence should have gone to the jury.

(2) Defendant was released by the 10 days’ limitation contained in the returned voucher agreement signed by Ketcham.

(3) As to all checks on which a claim was not made within one year after the return of the vouchers, defendant is released by section 326 of the Negotiable Instruments Daw.

I take these questions up in inverse order.

(3) The statute says:

“No bank shall be liable to a depositor for the payment by it of a forged or raised check, unless within one year after the return to the depositor of the voucher of such payment, such depositor shall notify the bank that the check so paid was forged or raised.”

On the face of the statute, it clearly does not apply. It is perfectly clear what forged and raised checks are. When we speak of a forged check, we mean that the maker’s name <is forged; a raised check is one the amount of which has been increased. Defendant attempts to extend the statute to the case of forged indorsements, on the theory that under the Penal Law forgery of a check includes the forgery and circulation of an indorsement. Obviously, if by the phrase “forged check” it was meant to include everything which the Penal Law defined as such, then there was no sense in using the term “raised" check, because that equally is a “forged’’ check. But defendant argues that its construction of the statute is reasonable because the depositor is much better able than the bank to ascertain the validity of an indorsement. This is manifestly untrue. The law is settled that ordinarily a depositor owes no duty to the bank to examine the indorsements on his returned vouchers, inasmuch as the obligation is upon the bank to make payment according to the drawer’s directions, and hence it is the bank’s duty to ascertain that it is making payment to the right person—a duty which the depositor may assume it has fulfilled when his checks are returned. Section 326 was originally enacted in 1904. There had shortly previous been a number of cases, including the Critten Case, 171 N. Y. 219 , 63 N. E. 969 , 57 L. R A. 529 , involving the liability of banks for forged and raised checks. There was much dicta and some language more or less equivocal in the books, but never until Morgan v. U. S. Mtg. & Trust Co., 208 N. Y. 218 , 101 N.

(2) Prior to August 2, 1909, plaintiff had been doing business with defendant under a system by which returned vouchers were simply receipted for. Shortly after the decision in the Critten Case, there was a general movement among banks, to protect themselves. This led to the adopting of a more stringent form of receipt for returned vouchers. Thus, this defendant adopted a form of receipt which, after acknowledging the return of the passbook with canceled vouchers as per list attached, said that the same “are hereby accepted as correct and genuine and the amount approved as stated, unless written notice to the contrary is given within ten days from this date.” This new agreement was on August 2, 1909, signed in plaintiff’s behalf by Ketcham, its cashier.' The original seems to have been retained by defendant, and no copy was kept by or delivered to plaintiff. Although Ketcham held the title of cashier, he was in fact no more than a clerk whose duties included caring for the current cash, making deposits, and receiving returned vouchers. He never had actual authority to sign the new and modified returned voucher contract, and he never informed any one in authority that he had done so. Previous to the adopting of this new form as above stated, it was plaintiff’s custom to give a simple receipt for the returned vouchers. I do not think that any express contract can be predicated of these facts. Ketch-am had no authority to make such a contract. But do not the facts raise an implied agreement on plaintiff’s part identical with the terms of the paper signed by Ketcham? I think so. When defendant sent to plaintiff, by Baxter, plaintiff’s messenger, the new contract with directions to have it signed by some one in authority, and when that form of contract, accompanied by defendant’s message, was presented .to Ketcham, the communication came to an agent who represented plaintiff in the matter of returned vouchers. This amounted to notice to plaintiff of defendant’s desire and intention, in the future, to be bound by and to do business only on the basis of the terms contained in the paper so presented to plaintiff for its acceptance. It then became plaintiff’s duty to act in the premises.' It could not remain silent and continue to do business with defendant, unless it was willing to accept defendant’s conditions.

(1) The negligence asserted is of two kinds: Negligence in signing ' and uttering the checks, in that plaintiff failed so to safeguard its system for their issuance as to afford reasonable protection from such frauds as those by which it was victimized, and, as well, negligence in failing to take any reasonably adequate means to discover the extensive and long-continued frauds after they had begun. If, in any view of the case, either of those questions was material, I should advise reversal on this ground, because I think, in that event, the evidence of negligence was such as to require the facts (except as to the checks which bore genuine indorsements of existing payees on which I deem defendant not liable in any event), to be submitted to the jury.

But in my opinion, any negligence on plaintiff’s part is quite immaterial. In the Shipman Case, Judge O’Brien said (at page 327 of 126

“Payments made upon forged indorsements are at the peril of the bank, unless it can claim protection upon some principle of estoppel or by reason of some negligence chargeable to the depositors.”

To hold plaintiff responsible for negligence in failing to discover and . notify defendant- of the frauds would present difficulties, the mere suggestion of which at once discloses their importance. See Knox v. Eden Musee Co., 148 N. Y. 441 , 458, et seq., 42 N. E. 988 , 31 L. R. A. 779 , 51 Am. St. Rep. 700 ; People v. Bank of North America, 75 N. Y. 547 , 556, 562; Bigelow on Estoppel (6th Ed.) 710 to 716. But for other reasons, I think the question of any negligence on plaintiff’s part, whether in the inception of the checks or thereafter, is unavailable to defendant.

The answer contains no allegation that the defendant has suffered or that it will eventually suffer any loss in case it is forced to respond to its prima facie liability on any of thé checks. On the contrary, it was conceded that in each and every instance plaintiff is protected from loss by - the prior indorsement of a solvent bank through which the checks passed in the course of their collection from defendant. The Critten Case ( 171 N. Y. 219 , 229, 63 N. E. 969 , 57 L. R. A. 529 ) is express authority for the proposition that, under such circumstances, a bank which has paid checks to which the maker’s name has been forged is not relieved from liability, even though the drawee of the check is chargeable with negligence in the transaction. In such case, the bank may only recoup for its damages, if any; this because the rule in all cases where negligence is asserted is that, to be an effective basis of legal right, damage must have resulted. This is equally true where negligence is alleged as ground of estoppel, for the only basis of estoppel is injury of some kind. Having suffered no injury and anticipating none, any negligence on plaintiff’s part is quite beside the case. Nor may we speculate as to whether, in the case of some prior indorser, near or remote, the defense of plaintiff’s negligence may not be good. No such indorser is now before the court, and our judgment should be based solely on the rights of the parties to the cause in hand.

If the foregoing views are correct, they lead to the following, result: Defendant is in no event liable on checks to the order of existing payees and indorsed by them; defendant is prima facie liable on checks to the order of nonexisting payees; it is likewise so liable on checks to the order, of existing payees whose indorsements were forged; but, because of the returned voucher agreement, it is not liable on any checks drawn after the date of that agreement and returned to plaintiff more than 10 days before defendant was notified of the frauds.

(dissenting). I concur in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice HOTCHKISS, except in so far as it holds that the defendant is not liable on checks drawn after the date of the alleged agreement made with the plaintiff, namely, August 2, 1909. As Ketch-am, termed a cashier, was no more than a clerk, with duties extremely limited in their nature, and' as he had no authority to make such an

For these reasons I do not concur in the dissenting opinion in so far as it holds the defendant not liable on any checks drawn after the date referred to.