Case ID: ny_243/html/0645-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cardo Drug Co., Inc., Appellant, v. Chatham and Phenix National Bank of the City of New York et al., Respondents.
    (Argued October 20, 1926;
    decided November 16, 1926.)
    
      Banks and banking — bills, notes and checks — action to recover balance of deposit — when payment to plaintiff’s treasurer of check against which stop order had been placed, payment to plaintiff.
    
    
      Cardo Drug Co., Inc., v. Chatham & Phenix Nat. Bank, 215 App. Div. 318, affirmed.
    Appeal from a judgment, entered February 13, 1926, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court and directing a dismissal of the complaint. The action was to recover an alleged balance on deposit to the credit of plaintiff with defendant bank. The answer alleged that prior to the commencement of the action the defendant bank paid to the treasurer of the plaintiff the sum of $4,000 pursuant to the terms of a check drawn by the plaintiff upon its said bank account, which check was signed by the proper officers of the corporation duly authorized and that defendant was ready and willing to pay the balance. It was shown on behalf of plaintiff that its president had requested the bank to stop payment on a blank check numbered 6712 and that defendant had in writing notified plaintiff it had done so. It also appeared that the day following, plaintiff’s treasurer presented check No. 6712-L payable to order of bearer and advised the bank the money was needed at once by the corporation in its business, and the bank, having no knowledge of trouble between the said treasurer and plaintiff or of lack, of authority on his part, paid the check.
    
      Otho S. Bowling and George L. Donnellan for appellant.
    
      Jacob Scholer for respondents.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion of Merrell, J., below.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane, Andrews and Lehman, JJ.