The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1851-06-03
Supreme Court Decisions.

8. G. Smith VS.. Mechanics and Traders Bank.
The plaintiff is broker in this city his bust
ness is that Of discounting bills and notes. He
kept an account with the Mechanics and Traders
Bank. On November 7, 1850, the plaintiff dis
counted forged bill offered for discount by Der.
son unknown to him. Il purported to have been
drawn by W. @. Ventress, on Payne & Harrison,
well known house in the city. Their acceptance
was forged, and the forgery was very bad imita-
ton Of their signature. The name of the drawer
was forged. Of Garland, the payee and endorsee
Of the bill, no account whatever is given, and the
presumption is that he is fictitious person. The
plaintiff gave check on the bank, for the net pro-
ceeds Of the bill, to the unknown person offering i,
for discount 1t was drawn in favor of PAYNE Il
Harrison. They kept no account with the bank,
nor is any other relation established between them
and the plaintiff than that resulting from the
forged acceptance of this bill. The check was
paid ON demand at the bank. the endorsement Of
Payne d Harrison having been forged. This for
gerry was also very bad one The payment Of
this check must be conceded to have been gross
negligence on the part of the clerk of the bank.
The District Court decided for the defendant, and
plaintiff has appealed. The Chief Justice gave
the opinion of the court affirming the Judgment !;
Judge Slidell dissenting. The Chief Justice in
delivering the opinion says:
As general rule it is undoubtedly true that
the bhker is bound to pay to his customers order,
and IT. unfortunately, he pay forged order, he
alone must bear the loss. 1t is conceded, how.
ever, by the learned counsel that proof of extraor
binary neglect, on the part Of the plaintiff. cacu-
lated to mslead the bank, and to facilitate the com.
mission Of the forgery, would justify the reversal
oil the judgment appealed from, which is in their
favor. We think the current Of decisions fully
justifes their admission.
In the case of Young u.s. Grote, the Chief Justice
said, that though the rule was well settled. that
the banker who pays forged check, is bound to
pay ms customer the amount yet il it be the fault
Of the customer that the banker pay more than he
ought, he cannot be called upon to pay again
Tho law considers the relation of banker and
customer requires perfect good faith in their deal
ngs.
The rule may be considered established, that a
iscounter, a man whose business it is to buy bills.
. not in the same situation AZ bank, whose bust.
less II is TO pay, and greater caution is required
rom the discountsr than the bank.
appears to me that no person should take q
security OF this kind, from another, without using
sasonable caution. Ifhs takes such security from
person whom he knows, and whom he can find
'u'' no complaint can be made of him. But il it
! " pe ia'd down as the law of the land, that
= may take security of this kind from man
= wnom he knows nothing, and of whom he
.Aee no inquiry at all. it appears to me that sucb
! ue'A'on would be more injurious to commerce.
'aan convenient to it. by reason Of the encou.ss'