Zugner v. Best — 44 N.Y. Super. Ct. 393

Majority

p. 393

ANNA ZUGNER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIAM J. BEST, Receiver, &c. German Savings Bank, &c., Defendant and Appellant.

Headnote

Savings Banks.—Notice of title.

In this case plaintiff intrusted to her husband a bond belonging to her, to be deposited in the German Savings Bank for safe keeping, which bond he thereupon took to said bank with plaintiff’s bank book, and delivered to the cashier, who placed the bond in the bank safe, and wrote the following memorandum and attached it to said bank book, and returned the same to defendant’s husband : “Mrs. Anna Zugner, Morrisania Steamboat Co., No. 1, Bond $1,000, August 20, 1873.”

Meld, that the said transaction was had with the cashier as an officer of the bank in the line of his duty, and that the bank recognized, and was charged with notice of plaintiff’s title to the bond. There was other evidence in the case of notice to the bank’s trustees of plaintiff’s title. Also, that a subsequent transfer of the bond to the bank by plaintiff’s husband was void.

Before Curtis, Ch. J., and. Sedgwick, J.

Decided January 6, 1879.

p. 394

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment entered in plaintiff’s favor, upon the report of a referee.

The action is brought to recover the possession of a bond for $1,000 of the Morrisania Steamboat Company, claimed to have been deposited with the German Savings Bank August 20,1873, for safe keeping, and found there by the defendant when he was appointed its receiver. The defendant claims it was transferred to the bank for a good and valuable consideration. The referee found for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals.

William F. Fiero, for appellant.

Flial F. Hall, for respondent.

There is a difficulty in sustaining the position taken by the defendant, that the transaction of depositing this bond for safe-keeping was between the plaintiff’s husband and Hoeland, the cashier of the savings bank, personally, and not as an officer of the bank in the line of his duty, and that therefore the bank was not charged with notice of the plaintiff’s title to the bond.

The evidence shows that the bond was bought with plaintiff’s money, and was intrusted to her husband to deposit in the bank for safe-keeping. That he thereupon took it to the bank with the plaintiff’s bank book, gave the bond to the cashier, who placed the bond in the bank safe and wrote the following memorandum on a card, and pasted it in the plaintiff’s bank book and returned it to her husband: “Mrs. Anna Zugner, Morrisania Steamboat Co. fío. 1. Bond $1,000. August 20, 1873, left with the German Savings Bank.”

This is the form of the memorandum as stated in the evidence in the case, though the last six words do not appear in the referee’s report or in the plaintiff’s

p. 395

points, but their presence or absence would not affect the conclusion in my mind, that this transaction was with the bank as such, and that the bank had due notice and recognized the title of the plaintiff to the bond as her property solely, and that the referee found correctly in that respect, and in accordance with the evidence.

The defendant claims that the bank in December, 1875, became the owner of the bond, by the transfer of it by the husband to the bank. This view is not free from difficulties. Even if the husband did attempt to transfer the plaintiff’s property to the bank, it is apparent that the bank had notice that it was the wife’s property, and the proofs establish that she had no knowledge or notice of any such act on her husband’s part, that it was unauthorized by her, and that both previously and for some time after, she received the interest coupons through her husband from the bank and caused them to be collected, and that such transfer was without consideration. But irrespective of the above embarrassments affecting the transfer, the weight of evidence is to the effect that the husband, when he attempted temporarily, as he claims, to contribute it towards sustaining the sinking fortunes of the bank, told his associate trustees of the bank that it belonged to his wife. The case discloses how a savings bank can be made to inflict injury and loss on those it should protect. Wherever unsuitable persons are organized under the forms of law, as custodians of the savings of the weak, a court of justice is called on, to narrow, as far as is consistent with law, the area of losses.

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed with costs, to be paid out of the funds in the hands of the defendant as receiver.

Sedgwick, J., concurred.