The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1874-12-03
,ERTIFICATION OF BANK CHECKS.
IMPORTANT CASE.

IMPORTANT CASE.
/ Some time ago We published an account
taken from the Journal Of Commerce, OF very
important case before one of the courts il
New York, where the Marine National Banl
Of that city brought suit against the Nationa
City Bank, for the recovery Of $500 from the
latter, paid on check for $1,000, which
amount was raised from 500 check. The
history Of the case the decision of which has
created great deal Of interest among the
business men Of New York, is as follows:
A tradesman received check which Lat
been raised from the original sum for which il
vas drawn, sent it to the drawee to have il
certified, and then deposited it in his bank
ing house, and was duly presented and paid.
On the discovery Of the fraud, the bank which
had paid i. sued the bank which had collected
it to recover the difference between the sum
paid out, and that for which the check was
drawn. This suit went agains. the claim
ant in the general term Of the Supreme Court,
but the Court OF Appeals has now allo we'd it,
thus reversing the decision OF the court below,
and the collecting bank must pay back the
money. II it cannot recover the sum Of the
customer who deposited it for collection, and
who was duly paid the money it mast lose it.
The following is the copy Of the decision of
the New York Court Of Appeals, as published
in the Jolua,d' of Commerce Of the Goth ult.
Court OF Appeals Marine National Bank,
appellant, against National City Bank, re-
spondent-No. 552
| BIZ the Cput-In order to sustain the iudc-
ment OF the general term, the defendant must
make out that it has parted with its money in
reliance upon some assertion of the plaintiff
in respect to the check, and which the plain
| tiff is therefore bound to make good. The
whole question is what did the plaintiff as
serr? Upon this question we agree with the
views expressed by the learned referee. When
a check is presented to bank on which it is
drawn for certitication, the purpose is to as
| certain with certainty what the bank al 9ne
can know, and that is, whether the drawers of
| the check have funds sufficient to meet it. and,
| further, to obtain the engagement Of the
bank that these funds shall not be withdrawn
from the bank by the drawers of the check
TO this extent the knowledge Of the bank
must OF necessity enable it safely to go in the
own funds will suffice to protect it as to its
obligation But if the doctrine contended
| for in opposition to this view is correct and
the certifying bank is bound to warrant not
| only the genuineness Of the drawers sigma
ture and the suficiency Of their credit, but
also the genuineness Of the check in all its
parts. including the specification Of the amount
to be paid and the names and identity
Of the payees, then obviously there must
occur an immediate and complete change
in the modes OF doing business
which would defeat and practically put
an end to the use Of certified checks. For no
bank under such rule could safely certify
check without, in the first instance, investi-
eating its origin and history by inquiry of the
makers and payers (sic.) The burden of
such inquiries could not be borne without in
tertering with or interrupting the other nee
essary business Of the banks, and the prac-
tice Of certifying checks would have to be
abandoned, or staff OF inquire-s instituted
in every bank specially charged with these
duties. 1t is plain that banks, in self-protec-
ton, would be compelled to refuse altogether
to certify cheeks and that this convenient and
useful invention Of modern business would
come to an end. The mischief would arise
rom charging the banks with a knowledge
that in the nature Of things they cannot pos.
sess. With their responsibility limited to
the facts, within their knowledge, the practice
imposes 10 burden upon banks and suhserves
the convenience OF commerce. No constguc.
ton ought to be pat on acts, il tue usual |
course Of business, which viii impose upon
the parties interested the necessity 0; imme.
diately altering it. For, as the question Is |
necessarily what did the parties mean, we can |
not without violent construction attribute 30 |
them meaning 50 burdens1ne that i. .vill !
neceSSitate a change of the usual way of doing ,
business. Such a meaning we know they I
cannot have entertained. We have been re.
ierred to various expressions in ditieren: eases
stating in quite positive and general terms the /
obligations of banks upon certified checks :: |.
Farmers Bank VS.. Butchers Bank, 16 \.
y, 125; First National Bank vs.. Leach, |,
% n. ", $50; Cooke VS.. State National
Bank, 81 n T., 10. These are to be construed
with reference to the facts disclosed in the
cases. In such cases the question has been,
in various forms, whether the bank certifying
q check could defend itself upon the ground
Of want Of authority in the certifying officer,
or that the drawer had not funds. These
being facts within the knowledge Of the Ger
tifying bank, it was necessarily precluded
from disputing its certificate. But there is
no ground Of reason or authority for extend
ing the rule to matters not being especially
within the knowledge of the certifying bank
such as those which form the ground in this
case on which the banks claims OF immunity
rests.
The order of the general term, granting a
new trial. should be reversed. ana the judg-
ment entered on the report Of the referee be
affirmed.
All concur Folger J. in result.
BRIGHAM iOUNG'S FIRST WIFE TRUE 70 We.
MANS NATURE.
fSalt Lake Tribune.I
It Will be remembered that in his nov: ceie-
,r,ta1 ssarcyar' in tha Ann E1i7a T;vcroa .,ca