Case ID: ny_218/html/0656-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Brooklyn Bank in the City of New York, Respondent, v. Borough Bank of Brooklyn, Appellant.
    
      Brooklyn Bank v. Borough Bank of Brooklyn, 166 App. Div. 788, affirmed.
    (Argued April 34, 1916;
    decided May 9, 1916.)
    Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered April 8, 1915, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court. The complaint alleges the delivery by the Borough Bank of Brooklyn to the Brooklyn Bank of $100,000 Island Cities five per cent gold debentures in payment of an indebtedness of the Borough Bank to the Brooklyn Bank in a like sum. The complaint further alleges that at the time of the delivery of the said bonds the said banks entered into an agreement by which the Borough Bank agreed to repurchase $25,000 worth of the said bonds on April 13, 1911, and $15,000 worth on April 13, 1912. The complaint further alleges the tender of the said bonds in the said amounts on the said dates to the superintendent of banks in charge of appellant, and the refusal of the appellant to accept the same. The demand for judgment is for the full purchase price of the said bonds, plus interest. The defendant contends that inasmuch as the plaintiff apparently used the bonds in question as collateral security after it had tendered the same to the appellant and began an action for the purchase price, it cannot recover the purchase price, although it admitted that this is the remedy the respondent elected and pursued, and complains of an insufficient tender of the bonds having been made by the respondent because of a certain stamping on the bonds which, the appellant argues, changed their identity or quality.
    
      Joseph A. Kellogg, Jeremiah T. Mahoney and Vincent L. Leibell for appellant.
    
      William Winthrop Taylor for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Willard Bartlett, Oh. J., Hiscock, Chase, Collin, Hogan, Cardozo and Seabüry, JJ.