The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-04-22
MARINE CoURT-pAsT 2.
Important to Bal kers.
Before Judge Spaulding.

Bank OF North America VS.. The Chemical National
Bank.-Ths action was brought to recover the
sum OF $500 under the following circumstances
1t appeared that the firm OF Morgan Il Allen, de-
positor with the plaintiff, made, on the 10th OF
October, 1872 their promissory note for $780, pay
able thirty days after date to the order OF one
George E. Cooke at the Bank OF North America.
The note, endorsed by the payer, left with the
defendant for collection, who, at its maturity.
presented it to the plaintiff for payment, whose
teller certified it and charged it to the account
OF Morgan Allen. On the return OF
the note to the defendant it was stamped
paid" and credited to the account OF the payee.
Neither the plaintiff any OF its agents knew by
whom the note was held or by whom or for whom
1t was presented until the day after it was pre-
sented for payment, when II had been returned by
the Clearing House. Then the plaintiff learned for
the first time that it was held by the defendant,
who had received the money on It, On the sue
ceeding day the PLAINTIFFS cashier called on the
defendant and explained that the note had been
certified under mistake; that the account OF the
maker with the plaintiff was overdrawn, and re-
quested permission to erase the certification and
at the same time demanded return OF the money.
the defendant refused; The amount, 1t was admit
Judge Spaulding in rendering his decision, said
substantially The question presented for my de-
cision Is: Can the plaintiff recover as for money
paid under mistake OF fact. The point is raised
that the Chemical Bank was not the proper party
ing the collection that the owner IL any one was
liable. That point Is not tenable because there is
no proof that the defendant disclosed its principal
until after demand for the return OF the money
was made. This point has been disposed OF In the
case .,h Of the Canal oo-, Bank vs. the Bank
agency has been disclosed, and money
paid to the agent for his principal
back from the latter 1t may stil he recovered from
the agent, provided he has not paid IL over nor
altered s his situation in relation to his principal
IN EAu
refers as an authority. that of Butter VS.. Harr
son tCowp., 1861, In which the agent had given
count containing the credit. In Hearsey VS.. Pruyn
u Johns, 17e), Spencer j. held that an action may
be sustained against an agent who had received
money TO which the principal had right II the
principal. The demand Of the the plaintiff in this
to be allowed to erase the certincatIon was
IN e1ect. though not In terms notice not to pay
the proceeds to the payee. | have, therefore, no
hesitation in holding that the action is properly
brought against the present defendant. The legal
effect Of the certiflcation OF commercial paper by
banks mas been passed upon in numerous cases
Wellests VS.. The Phoenix Bank q Deur. 1871 ;Mends
vs. The Merchants Bank OF Albany (25 N. Y, 14sl.
city between the Clearing House and Exchange
and banks which effect their clearances through It,
means something more than mere assumption OF
an opigation to :, pay the certified paper
when presented en-, The certlfcation is in effect
TO tho credit or the bank holding the paper and 10
charge the certifying bank with corresponding
amount IL Is precisely the same as II the certify
ing bank took the note and gave its check upon
Inc Clearing House for specific sum of money. l
am oil opinion that the certIfcatfon OF the note
operated as payment OF 1t. The teller OF the
plaintiff testified that when he certified the note
ne did not Know the makers account had been
0verdrawn. IL cannot be claimed that this was
such voluntary payment As TO defeat the right Of
recovery. payment made without q full knowl-
edge oil al the facts concerning the matter
is not voluntary payment. lake vs..
Citizens Bank 8 Keys. 276: Kinnstop Bank