, 1873-03-23
CHECKS DRAWN BY CLERKS.

Tho Liability Of n Bank for Paying Checks
signed by q Clerk Alter ExpfrJ Of Authors
ty to 10 so--A Case of Interest to the ton1-
mcrrinI 1Tor1d--Snprcuao Court Decislon'
3fesa1. Lyman and Jackson eend rs the following
opinion Of the supreme Court, by Judge lawrence IN
the appeal Of tho Manufacturer Bank nf Chicago r. ~
s. Barnes ct al:
This .ction wns brought by Barnes Il Co. to recover
nadc bT the plaintiffs with the hank. Tho deposits
we're admitted but tho defense sct up WAS Ia5men: to
+ appears that on the 22d Of June 1870, Barnes, the
resident partner At Chicago and ne only person A.
hortzed to draw checks, being obliged to !eAT1 1os
city for . short time, gave to . clerk e1nployed
by him ~ bookkecper and cashier power OF atto5ey
authorizing him to draw checks Oh tho bank FOR nieeo
daTB, This power OF attorney WAS lodged Win tno
b.nf conversation having been previously had with
the assistant cashier In regard to II on tue va OF
July Barnes returne' and resumed 1no cna58e q ~.
occasional checks, signing the name OF Barnea With
tLe initial letter Of his own name, to indicate NJ
January tho whole amount drawn being :,547.94 OF
this sun ths clerk had used Il 30 in pairing debA
E The firm sqs as 1G bs n
times written up, and the paid checks returned but
Il thi. had been attended 70 by tho sa1na cEIs'
acting in bis capacity OF book*zeeper and cashier.
tbset. ths f4ft liter mt The power of s;onsy
expired van not discovered by tns n.ls UNI o1t
for he 1uount Of checks drawn by tho clerk eas Ee
sum applied by him to the debts Of :he firm Tor woiea
the plAlQttu6 RAFt Ing u1uA E4G14A.
bY the Court without jury, and it u inal1eo .s
Court e1red in rendering judgment TOR auy groatet
su than The amount checked out BY the cetx oe1or9
the bank or pass book OF tho PLAINTIFFS Wa u ~
The rtt time =heu Ill tbs checks vert returned 20
nlant It is claimed that from that dAte 81 .o
h,nk Ind the right to presume that the ce1A ma au-
thortv tn draw chccks. Tlete IL ~ toc u1B1 o!ao
eo-t,i1 n1ausibtl,y IN tLts view, but 1t VIII nos
bear examination. The Ra1ne question at9-e u mo
Sare c,erk hid dz.wn checks in the name Of h!s
.1rnover and the ra.sbook h1d boen several tines
Ttten up and tho checks retnrnen bciore dlacoseEy
IT the fraud Tho Court held that the baanc1r8 OF
ha and the return Of the checks arc for 7
rrottc,ou OF the epostor, and Eot Tor that NJ -ta
fnf .nl the failure Of the depositor to examine the
rhsris IA not ch negligence on his pat aa to czone=
- fho hank from Liability for the continued .eat
of checks improperly drawn. We do not sgr"e With
counsel for appellant In regarding tho present care Al
etrourar for the bank than that In the before
The checks drawn by the Clerk showed upon their fe.
that they were drawn by him, and tbs bank knew
b. document IN its own possession, ant
which had been 1nlde the subject It speei.
conversation with Of s officers That tho clerk hat
authority draw checks on1y for fifteen days from tn
I'D OF June The facts that the plaintiff had been thu
careful give the clerk e1pTeas written authority
10 limit it to nfteen days. aEd to lod2o this author
with tha bank in pursuance Of previous arrangement
were sufficient To show the bank that the plaintiff ha
to draw. The bank guilty Of greet negligence
pairing checks Of the clerk drawn after that period,
cannot b. excused merely because tho plaintiff iaic
| to examine the returned check, which he had rigl
| to presume had been drawn by himself alone u
consider tho reasoning Of the New York Court Of Al
realB in the cited very e2ttaf4corT and adopt
decision IS the better rule. Judgment Affirmed