Case ID: ny-st-rep_22/html/0131-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Learned, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William H. Holister, Resp’t, v. Central National Bank of Troy, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department,
    
    
      Filed March 16, 1889.)
    
    1. Bailment—Negligence—When bailee liable.
    The court, on the trial, charged the jury that the defendant was not liable unless there had been some wrongful act—some careless act—some negligent act on its part: Held, no error.
    ’ Y. Same—When befusal to change peopeb.
    A request to charge that the defendant could not be liable except for gross negligence was properly refused.
    This action was brought to recover for the conversion of certain bonds delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant as collateral security for a note discounted for the plaintiff. The note was renewed from time to time as other notes were discounted. After payment of all the notes the plaintiff demanded the bonds of the cashier, who told him that lie had better leave them as he was still doing business with the bank and might want further accommodations, and the bank would feel better if it had the bonds as collateral, to which he assented. The bank continued to collect the interest and credit it to the plaintiff. Subsequently the plaintiff again demanded the bonds and the bank claimed that it did not have them.
    The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff, and from the judgment entered thereon this appeal is taken.
    
      Orin Campbell, for appl’t; Nelson Davenport, for resp’t.
   Learned, P. J.

—This case is substantially like that of Ouderkirk against the same defendant, and was argued with that case. Ante, p. 127. There was no written receipt given in this case. But the conversation with the cashier, at tile time when the note was given to which the bonds had been collateral, and the subsequent consent of the bank show •same arrangement as in the other case. The court charged that the defendant was not liable unless there had been some wrongful act, some careless act, some negligent act on its part.

The defendant asked the court to charge that defendant could not be liable except for gross negligence. This was refused.

The question, therefore, has been discussed, in the opinion in the Ouderkirk case.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Landon and Ingalls, JJ., concur.