New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-03-06
COURT RECORD.
FRIDAY, MARCH 5. 1875.
euperior l)jseriet (,our,

Superior District Court.
Temple s. COOns vs. John w. Cannon
Suspensive appeal allowed.
W. w. Handlin vs. New Orleans, St. Loui,
and Chicago Naturalization for $l2,5O(
damages to property by defendant. On
trial.
Superior Criminal Court.
NOLLE PROsEQUI ENTERED.
John Carmody, shooting, ETC.; David
Mason, assault, etc.; Kate Love, Alice
Mitchell and Lucy Wilson, grand larceny
Harry Rank, embezzlement.
ACQUITTED.
&. L. Richardson, of carrying q concealed
weapon; George Powers, Of burglary.
CONVICTED.
George Fritz, alias Frey, and FranA
O'Brien, of forgery and obtaining goods or
forged order.
Henry Braun, embezzlement, one year.
First Districs Court.
SENTENCED.
Petty larceny-Ed. Brown. George vii
liams, Francis Belknap, Andrew Wicker
one year each.
Trespass-Joseph Doubourras, alias Oar
mandal, two charges, one year each.
Second District Court.
SUGGESTIONS of Norman Story and John
McGraw opened.
Joseph Gatti prays to be emancipated.
Fifth District Court.
Judge Cullom rendered the following
decision:
Louisiana National Bank vs. Citizens
Bank.-Suit to recover $27OO paid on q
check deposited by the New Orleans Saw.
ings Institution, subsequently discovered to
be forged. Before deposited it had been
marked good by plaintiff 1t was raised
zens' Bank, which disclosed no agency in
collecting it. Payments made when no debt
is due must be repaid; C. C. 1901, 2l33, 1904.
The signature being genuine, knowledge of
it was no guide to detection of the altera-
ton. Morse Banks, 30l, 309, $40. Banks
are held more strictly to account than in
dividuals. There is nothing about the check
to awaken suspicion. II . check has been
so drawn by the maker as to open the door
for the commission of an undiscOverable
alteration, he alone should suffer. Young
Marg. H. L, c. 5l3; Byles on Bills, "a; Story
en- Notes, sec. 400; % l.. and E. I; 5 B. and
c., $50; 3 Bing, 225; 1iKern., 4O4; Oomst,
1l3; Grant on Bankers, IL. The Endorsement
Of Tho bank bound the. bank as if it had
been the original pr0miser. 1t is NO
defense that the alteration was before &C.
ceptance. Met, SO; Langt0n Vs. LaEOnes,
M. e. w., 629; 43 Ala. N. S., 800. Banks
are bound to know the handwriting of their
customers. 10 Wheat, $50; II Mass, 33.
The notice OF forgery was given forty days
thas is required. The earlier cases held one
days delay fatal. The time depends on the
circumstances of the Case. Hill, 2S7; 3
Comst., 23O; 2 Pars. Bills, 597; 10 Wheat,
1888, 648. Where the certificate is for use
the bank is held liable. l8 WALL, 62l. If
one by omission induces another to part
with property, he must suffer. 8 A., 400.
Acceptance is not an admission Of the
payee's signature. A bona fide holder may
recover OF an acceptOr who knew the payee
was fictitious, but acceptance without such
false Representations may recover from the
holder. c. c., 1901, 2305.
In the suit of the National Park Bank
vs.. the German American Bank, lately de.
cided in the Court If Common Pleas in
New York, by Judge DAILY, the facts were
to very material extent similar to the
fact in the case before me. The :Park
Bank paid the raised check to the defend
ant before discovering its mistake, and
then sued for the amount Overpaid, $644
The defendants claimed that they had
parted with their money on the faith of the
the Park Bank must bear the
loss" Judge DAILY said that the ''certitica-
ton only warranted the genuineness of the
drawers signature, and that the bank had
funds to meet the check, and that the de-
were LIABLE" A still more leading
case was also decided in New York, in
which all the Judges concurred. 1t is the
case of the Marine National Bank, appel.
liant, vs. the National City Bank, wherein
the court said:
I'm order to sustain the judgment of the
general term, the defendant must make out
that it has parted with it's money in reli.
respect to the check, and which the plaintiff
s therefore bound to make good. The
whele question is, what did the plaintiff
asserts Upon this question we agree with
the views expressed by the learned referee.
When q check is presented to q bank
On which it is drawn for certifca-
tion, the purpose is to ascertain with
what the bank alone can
know; that is, whether the drawers of the
check have funds sufficient to meet it, and
further, to obtain the engagement of the
oank that these funds shall not be With
1rawn from the bank by the drawers of the
check. ITO this extent the knowledge of
The bank must Of necessity enable it safely
70 60 on In the way OF assertion. and it's
)wn power over its own funds will suffice
% protect it as to its own obligation. But
f the doctrine contended for in opposition
20 this view is correct, and the certifying
bank is bound to warrant not only the |
commences of the drawers signature and |
he sutficiency of their credit, but also the |
commences CT the check in all it's parts,
the specification of the amount to |
'e paid, and the names and identity of the |
'ayees, then obviously there must OCCUR an |
and complete change in the |
nodes of doing business which would defeat |
nd practically put an end to the use of |
ertitied checks, for no bank under such q |
ule could safely certify check without,
q the first instance, Investigating its origin
nd history by inquiry Of the makers and
ayers. The burden of such inquiries
ould not be borne without interfering with
r intergupting the other necessary bust.
ess of the banks, and the practice Of GER
Tying checks would have to be abandoned
r q staff of inquirers instituted in every
ank specially charged with these duties.
ls plain that banks, in selfprOtectiOn,
'ould be compelled to refuse altogether to
Gritty checks, and this convenient and
seful invention of modern business would
ome TO an end. The mischief would arise
ON charging the banks with knowledge
iat in the nature of things they can rot
ossess. With their responsibility limited
} the facts within their knowledge, the
ractice imposes no burdens upon banks,
nd subserves the convenience of COM
erce. No construction ought to be put
1 acts, in the usual course of business,
hich will impose upon the parties inter-
ted the necessity OF Immediately altering
Tor as the question is, necessarily, what
d the parties mean, we can not, without
oient construction, attribute to them a
eaning 80 burdensome that it will necessi
te change Of the usual way of doing busi
'ss. Such meaning we know they can not
I'VE entertained. We have been referred |
various expressions in differe1t cases,
ating in quite positive and general terms
9 obligations Of banks upon certified |
ecks. Farmers Bank vs. Butchers BankSe3
NJ OK Na4:...&El L