Case ID: ny_54/html/0671-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Earl, C.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cornelius M. Van Leuven, Respondent, v. The First National Bank of Kingston, Appellant.
    (Argued June 18, 1873;
    decided September term, 1873.)
    A national bank can properly and legally engage in the business of dealing in and exchanging government securities.
    This was an action to recover the value of certain United States treasury 7-30 notes to the amount of $1,000, alleged to have been delivered to defendant to be exchanged for 5-20 bonds.
    The dealing in and exchange of government securities was part of defendant’s business; J. H. Hasbrouck was its president and managing officer. Plaintiff had deposited in its vaults treasury 7-30 notes to the amount of $10,000. He went to the bank and found Hasbrouck in the room occupied by him as president and told him he desired to exchange his notes for 5-20 bonds. Hasbrouck said: “ We will do it * * * , we are doing it for a great many,” and advised plaintiff that, as he was a regular customer of the bank, they would charge nothing for doing it. The notes were, thereupon, taken from the bank vault and plaintiff delivered them to Hasbrouck, who gave a receipt, therefor using paper belonging to the bank and used in its business, with a printed heading, stating, in brief, the nature of its business, and giving the names of its officers, among others of Hasbrouck as its president. The certificate read thus:
    
      “ This is to certify that I have received from O. F. Van Leuvan U. S. 7-30 notes, $10,000, which I am to exchange for same amount of U. S. 5-20 bonds and deliver to him.
    “ 10,000.” J. H. HASBROUCK.”
    It appeared, on the part of defendant, that before the organization of defendant as a bank, Hasbrouck was doing business as a private banker, and that plaintiff then dealt with him in reference to bonds. It also appeared that, prior to the transaction above stated, plaintiff at one time went to the bank and inquired for Hasbrouck, who was out. He then inquired of the cashier in’reference to certain bonds which he said were in the bank vault, and showed the cashier a receipt signed by Hasbrouck, the precise form, of which did not appear; the cashier informed him that it was the individual business of Hasbrouck, with which the bank had nothing to do.
    The court, upon these facts, directed a verdict for plaintiff. Held (Reynolds and Johnson, CO., dissenting), no error; that the receipt being given as a part of the transaction and as a' voucher merely, and no evidence appearing of an intent to alter the effect of what had been before said, imported simply, when read in the light of the surrounding circumstances, a transaction with the bank, and that it mattered not how Hasbrouck understood it, but the question was how plaintiff did and had the right to understand it; also held, that the dealings between Hasbrouck and plaintiff, before the former became defendant’s financial officer, were immaterial, as was also the evidence in regard to the prior receipt.
    That the business of exchanging government securities was such as a national bank, through its officers, could properly and legally engage in, was held in the prevailing opinion, and was concurred in by all.
    
      F. L. Westbrook for the appellant.
    
      Samuel Hand for the respondent.
   Earl, C.,

reads for affirmance.

Lott, Ch. C., and Gray, C., concur.

Reynolds and Johnson, CC., read for reversal.

Judgment affirmed.