New Orleans Republican., 1872-05-08
TIE COURTS.



The suit was bTOugh- on a bond. Of which
Ocean, Zerega & Co. were the sureties.
Mary T. Evans ct ais. VS.. William 5.
Pike.-Plaintitfs recover, by verdict OF the
jury, $1,000 rent per year since sheriff sale,
charging her with the refunding of the taxes
paid by the defendant, and Mrs. Eliza c.
johnson is discharged from any liabilities
The suit was originally brought for rent
The property was purchased at mortgage
sale by William 5. Pike, who went security
on the mortgage.
United States District COurt-Iu Bauk-
ruptcy.
In the matter of Clifford G. WAYNE. the
opposition of Alfred S. Huntington and
others to the discharge Of the bankrupt not
being filed within the prescribed delay, is,
in accordance with the recent rule, dis
missed. The bankrupt having complied
with all the requirements Of the bankrupt
act, is discharged from all lis liabilities in
existence at the date of fling the petition.
In the matter of George w. Sizer, rule
absolute, and I. L. Macon ordered to pay
rent due the bankruptcy.
United states District COurt-In Admi-
rHlty.
In the case of Garrega against the steam
ship SOuder and tug Tecumseh, the case is
transferred to the eighteenth instant.
IL, Hegarty against the steamer Cameiia,
proceeds Of sale to be turned over to the
Lbelant and claimant on deduction Of all
costs.
supreme Court Opinions.
L.Levy and SaIomon vs.. the Bank Of
America.--Appeal from the Seventh Dis
trict Court, parish Of Orleans.
The facts Of tins case are as follows:
The plaintiffs, brokers and dealers in
warrants. purchased of a man unknown to
them a State warrant for $500, drawn to
the order of and indOrsed by Charles II.
Merritt. the secretary Of the State Senate
for which they gave their check for $72O on
the Bank OF America lwhere they kept an
aCcount) drawn first to bearer, but changed
by them before delivery to the order OF said
Merritt. This change was made after the
stranger was asked if he was Charles H.
Merritt and replied attirmativcly, the OBJ
iect being, as stated, to make him identify
himself at the bank.
This check, bearing the name of Charles
II. Merritt on its back, was taken by IsidOre
Newman, a broker, also keeping an account
with defendant, in exchange for coin and
currency, and by him deposited, with his
Endorsement on it, with the Bank Of Amer
ica its amount being credited to him and
charged to plaintiffs. The State warrant
passed through several hands, and was
finally some four or five months after the
above transaction, presented by one Of the
tax collectors to the Auditor when ii was
found to have been changed from the sum
of 500 to 5000. From each successive
holder it reverted to plaintiffs, who found
then that the Endorsement of Charles ii.
Merritt was forged upon their check. They
then sued the bank for having paid the
check on this forged Endorsement. The bank
called Newman in warranty.
The district court gave Judgment for the
bank on the authority Of the case of Smith
VS.. Mechanics and Traders Bank, 6 An,
Cl0 and the plaintiffs appealed. They
called in question the correctness Of the
doctrine OF that case, but cOntended that it
differed entirely from the one at bar upon
the points considered by the Supreme Court
as OF the first Importance, to wit: That
Smith, in drawing his check to the order Of
the supposed aCCeptorS of the bill pur-
chased by him, and not to the order of the
holder from whom he purchased, was de-
Waiting from the usual course OF business,
and from his own long established and reg
ular custom; whilein this case the plaintiffs
drew their check according to the usual,
ordinary course Of business, to the order Of
the prayer Of the warrant purchased, whose
genuine Endorsement was on it at the time.
Justice Howell says:
This difference does not seem to us to be
such as to greatly benefit the plaintiffs. In
such case. the instrument purchased was a
forgery at the time of the purchase, and the
purchasers issued their check in payment
thereof to unknown persons, but IN the
name Of the payees alike Of the forged in
strument, with the acknowledged purpose
Of throwing upon the bank the response
bility of paying the right party. In such
case the signature OF the check was genuine,
and the checks were given to tile guilty
parties or their a COmpHCcs, who had easily
and successfully deceived the drawers of
the checks, who, il seems, had some sus-
picions as to the identity Of the
parties with whom they were deal
iur As said in the Smith case, the first
fault was committed by the plaintiffs
in taking the false or forged instrument and
placing their check in the hands of a party
who had every interest to use If as an i'm
Dlement of fraud. The plaintiffs can not
successfully complain that the bank failed
TO protect them from tie devices OF per
son who had with 50 little effort deceived
and deirauded them. If the warrant pur
chased by them had been genuine, we pre-
sumo they would not have complained of
the payment of their check by the bank to
any other party than Merritt, in whose Ia
yor it was drawn by them. 1t seems to US
they are CndeavOriug to make the bank re-
pair loss which they brought an them
selves by their own caTelesSnGsS. There is !
feature in this case which makes il a stronger /
one in favor Of the bank than the Smith |
case. 1t is that the bank in this instance |
paid on the genuine Endorsement of the |
party presenting it for payment, the in |
dOrsement of Newman. We are aware Of |
no law or custom which makes banks re
spOnsIble primarily for the genuineness of /
every Endorsement which may appear on |
checks drawn on them. We aUDrehend /
that they are not required to suspend pay
mont until they are furnished with direct |
proof that each Endorsement preceding that /
of the party presenting or depOsIling it, is
genuine. They must know the larty to