Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-01-04
"A FALSE ALARM.
HOW IT CAUSED GODFREY POLITE TO
GO INTO INSOLVENCY,
And Gets a Creditor and Bank Into a
Lawsuit-Some Important Points
to be Settled.

An interesting case came up in Judg,
Armstrong; Court yesterdsy-that of W
d l. Steinhart. of San Francisco, agains
the National Bank of D. o. Mills & Co
Briefly stated the facts are about as fol
lows: Godfrey Politz, of this city, owed
the Steinharts $3.50, for which they helc
his note. The latter firm, on the 18th O
February last, sent the note to the banl
here for collection. Polilz was indebted Il
the bank on past.due loan for much
larger sum than the note. He went to thu
bank before noon and wrote on the face o.
the note Charge to my account; Politz'
The note was placed ON the spindle, and 6
draft made for the amount and placed in
the mail before clock P. NJ. of the same
day.
at o'clock the banks transactions were
closed for the day, and the note was en-
tered on the journal against Politz At 4
P. NJ the baak officials heard that Poliiz
had made an assignment. The letter was
recovered from the Postoffice, the draft was
taken from it, The past6ue loan was
charged against Poliiz, ard the note was
returned to the Steinbarts with hole in
the center of il.
The Steinbarts claimed the money from
the bank, which refused to pay il, and suit
was commenced for the smount Counsel
for the San Francisco firm argued that the
bank has no right TO the money, having
acted in the capacity of agent for his clients
and that when the note was Cancelled and
notice Of the transaction deposited in the
PostCtfice the act Of collection had been
consuMmated.
Judge benson, for the defense, claimed
directly to the contrary, alleging that they
were under no obligation to pay the Stein
hart note, having been merely requested so
TO do by PolitZ, and that they had a right
to change their minds and recall the money
las they did, before it reached the plaintiffs
hands.
The case was argued at some length, and
will be further submitted on briefs giving
points and authorities as to the effect given
proceeding by depositing notice thereof
through the mails.
The case had some arlusing features. 1t
appears that the bank officials had sub
mitted a hypothetical case covering the
points of the transaction to the editor of an
Eastern journal published in the interest of
banking institutions, and which is regarded
eo dAtA4CA1lE III SuCn udtt6TS. Inc editor
decided the case against the bank, giving
his reasons therefor, and the defendants
were taken quite aback yesterday when Mr.
Ach, plaintiff s counsel, arose in Court with
type written copy of the decision referred
to and employed it in his argument. OF
course il was not supposed for moment
that the plaintiff or his counsel Ghey not
being bankers) would know anything about
the editorial adjudication of the case.
Politz himself was called as witness in
the case, and the fact was developed that
he was needlessly frightened into the act
OF going through insolvency. He testified
that be supposed he was perfectly solvent
at the time ne made the S4O0 deposit in the
bank, and asked the latlerto pay the Stein
hart note, but few hours later in the dav
he heard wild "rumor" from a single in
dividuaD that he was to be attached, and
therefore put in petition of insolvency.
He had not learned who it was that pro-
posed to attach his stock, and does not to
this day know who it was. In short, ii was
"a false alarm"