Lynch v. First National Bank

—It is desirable in the first instance to pre_ cisely determine the questions which are presented by the record before us.

The evidence is very brief and not in any respect conflicting unless the facts proved are fairly susceptible of opposite inferences in different minds. At the close of the plaintiff’s case the defendant moved for a dismissal of the complaint without stating the grounds therefor, and upon the refusal of the court to grant the motion, took an exception. After the evidence was all in, the court directed a verdict for the plaintiff, to which direction the defendant also took an exception.

These two exceptions present the material points in the case.

No request was made by either party to go to the jury upon questions of fact, and the only question presented by the exceptions is whether upon any view of the evidence the plaintiff was entitled to recover. No objection that any evidence was inadmissible under the pleadings was made, and the action was tried and decided upon the whole case as presented by the proof without objection. From that it appeared that one, F. F. Wilder, purchased of the plaintiff a diamond of the value of $500, and delivered to her in payment therefor a check signed by himself, and reading, with its indorsements, as follows:

“ Jebsey City, N. J., January 1, 1883. “First National Bank, to pay to myself or order five hundred dollars.

“F. F. WILDEB.

“Certified,

“First National Bank, Jersey City. Payable at the American Exchange National Bank, New York.

“OMBEBSON.

(Endorsed) “ T. Lynch, B.”

This check was not endorsed by Wilder. Omberson was assistant cashier of the defendant, authorized to certify checks, and certified the one in question on June 1, 1883, at the request of the drawer, while still in his possesion and who at that time had funds in the bank.

Upon this evidence it is clear that there was no contract made between Wilder and the plaintiff whereby any transfer of the deposit in the bank was intended to be made be

It, therefore, seems to us that the only question in the case is whether the bank could be made liable to pay to third persons Wilder’s funds by any transfer of this check except one evidenced by the endorsement of his name thereon. It is well settled by authority that the mere drawing and delivery of a bank check to a third person by a depositor does not constitute an assignment to the payee therein named of the fund held by such bank. Ætna National Bank v. Fourth National Bank, 46 N. Y., 82 , Commercial Bank of Albany v. Hughes, 17 Wend., 94 . A check is analogous to a bill of exchange and a bank cannot be made liable thereon except by its acceptance endorsed upon it in writing. Bisley v. Phenix Bank, 83 N Y., 318 . An acceptance of the check, however, was made by the bank, we think, when, through its agent, it endorsed thereon a certificate of genuineness and directed its payment by the American Exchange Bank. That operated as a promise to pay it upon presentation at the American Exchange Bank, bearing Wilder’s endorsement. The obligation of the bank, as shown thereby, amounts to a representation that the drawer has funds in the bank with which to pay the check and that it will retain and pay them to the holder by its agency in New York upon its presentation there, bearing the endorsement of the drawer. Farmers and Mechanics' Bank v Dro. and Butch. Bank, 14 N. Y., 623 ; 16 id., 126; 28 id , 425; Security Bank v. National Bank, 67 id., 458, 460; Clews v. Bank of New York, 89 id., 418. Such a contract the bank had a right to make, limiting its liability to an order properly endorsed by the depositor, or his payer, and the depositor had the right to impose upon the bank the condition that his money should be paid out by it only upon a check endorsed by himself or its payee. If the bank should disregard such a requirement it would do so at its own risk, but the holder has no legal right to impose such a liability upon it against its consent. It would certainly add much to the hazard of the transmission of funds by check, draft or otherwise, through the mail or express, if the banks or other agencies upon which they were drawn should be compelled to pay them to the holder by an action at law where they do not bear upon their face the evidence of the performance of the condition upon which the drawer has authorized their payment.

It was held in Freund v. Imp. and Traders' Bank (supra),

The relation existing between a bank and its depositor is that of debtor and creditor, and the bank holds the fund subject to be paid but upon the direction of the creditor according to the terms and conditions imposed by him. Ætna Natl. Bank v. Fourth Natl. Bank, 46 N. Y., 82 ; Crawford v. West Side Bank, 100 N. Y., 56 . The bank’s protection in the payment of checks consists in the fact that it has followed strictly the depositor’s directions in disbursing his funds. Where a depositor has imposed the condition that his check shall not be paid without it bears his endorsement, the depository if it pays it to a holder without such indorsement, runs the risk of the transaction and takes the burden of showing that such holder has acquired in some way the lawful title to receive the funds. It may successfully defend such a payment if it can show that it made it to a person, who, as against the drawer, was legally entitled to receive it, for in that event the drawer would suffer no damage thereby.

It was held in Risley v. Phenix Bank ( 83 N. Y., 318 ), that a paroi contract by a depositor for the transfer of the whole or any part of his deposit, is valid in law and invests the transferee with the right to sue for and recover the amount of such deposit or such part thereof as was intended to be transferred. It was also held in the same case that a depositor might concurrently, with the delivery of a check to a third person, enter into such a contract by paroi as would transfer the fund represented by the check' to the person named therein.

In such a case the liability of the depository is not predicated upon the check but that is used in connection with the paroi agreement as evidence of the contract transfer

The action arises upon the contract of assignment and not upon the check.

We are of the opinion that the evidence in this case did not authorize the trial court to find that Wilder intended to transfer any part of his deposit to the plaintiff, and there is no other theory upon which the action, can, under the evidence, be maintained. The verdict was therefore improperly directed for the plaintiff.

The judgments of the courts below should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.

All concur, except Earl, J., not voting.