Majority
Headnote
1. Lost Instruments—Indemnity—Bonds—Nonnegotiable Instruments.The provisions which were included in the Revised Statutes (2 Rev. St. p. 406, pt. 3, c. 7, tit. 3, §§ 75, 76) and the present provision of the Code of Civil Procedure (section 1917) were designed to take the place of the ancient rule denying jurisdiction in law in actions on lost negotiable instruments, and requiring all suits upon lost negotiable instruments to be brought in equity, where the
The pass book of a savings bank is not a negotiable instruments Kummel v. Bank, 127 N. Y. 488 , 28 N. E. 398 ; Smith v. Bank, 101 N. Y. 58 , 4 N. E. 123 ; Allen v. Bank, 69 N. Y. 314 ; Beaver v. Beaver, 53 Hun, 258 , 6 N. Y. Supp. 586 ; McCaskill v. Bank, 60 Conn. 30ÍÍ, 22 Atl. 568 .
The banking law provides:
“The sums deposited with any savings bank, together with any dividends ev interest credited thereto, shall be repaid to such depositors respectively, or fer; their legal representatives, after demand, in such manner and at such time." and after such previous notice and under such regulations as the board of trus - tees shall prescribe.” Section 113.
The banking law also provides:
“No savings bank shall make or issue any certificate of deposit, * * ® pro pay any interest or deposit, or portion of a deposit, or any check drawn upon itself by a depositor, unless the pass book of the depositor be produced and -fiEssproper entry be made therein, at the time of the transaction. The board cQT trustees may by their by-laws provide for making payments in cases of fcsssof pass book or other exceptional cases where the pass book cannot be produced without loss or serious inconvenience to depositors. * * *” Sectlon 122.
Under these provisions of the banking law, such reasonable bylaws regulating the withdrawal of money may be made and enforced! as the board of trustees of a savings bank may deem to the ínteresk of the bank. Such provisions of the by-laws are evidence of the ccrtract between the bank and its depositors. The pass book is simply evidence of the deposit. Banking Law, § 113. In the absence ek any rules assented to by its customers, a savings bank is to be g©xerned by the same legal principles applicable to other moneyed institutions. Allen v. Bank, 69 N. Y. 314 . A provision in the by-lkws of a savings bank to the effect that, in case a pass book is lost or destroyed, the deposit shall not be repaid, unless the bank shall iteró receive satisfactory indemnity, is a reasonable provision; and, when it is so provided in the by-laws, such provision becomes a part of itkscontract between the bank and its depositor, and should be,, azró is, enforced as such by the courts.
An examination of the authorities cited by the defendant bearó, holding that a savings bank is not bound to pay a deposit to a depositor without production of the book, or satisfactory indemnify, will show that such decisions are based upon the contract between-
“In the case of lost hooks, the bank will decide as to the person to whom payment shall be made.”
This provision of the by-laws is a part of the contract in this case, but it does not mean that the bank can decide not to pay the deposit to any person, or that it will not pay the deposit without adequate indemnity. The bank has had knowledge since 1890 that the pass book is lost, and no claim has been made for the deposit, except by the depositor and the plaintiff, as her executor; and its decision refusing to pay the deposit to the executor of the last will and testament of the depositor is unreasonable.
The plaintiff is entitled to judgment in the sum of 13,900, with interest thereon from September 10, 1897, besides costs; and a decision and judgment may be prepared accordingly.
Cases cited
- Blade v. Noland 12 Wend. 173 p. 151
- Rowley v. Ball 3 Cow. 303 p. 151
- Des Arts v. Leggett 16 N. Y. 582 p. 151
- Wright v. Wright 54 N. Y. 437 p. 151
- Kummel v. Germania Savings Bank 127 N. Y. 488 p. 151
- Smith v. Brooklyn Savings Bank 101 N. Y. 58 p. 151
- Allen v. Williamsburgh Savings Bank 69 N. Y. 314 p. 151