New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-07-24

An Interesting decision Of the supreme Court "c eial
Term which Will probably lot tr hnhl a. III" 'a''
ougi certainly to- - To- tn Court oil NPl''"'' "''
published In The Law Journal last wcE. II con
cerrd the duty Of the teller 81 a savings hahN III
Identifying the person who prcsratS pa>NbooN "''
cndcavors to draw money on 1t. In the case con
| sidcrrd n man had deposited money in saw =
hank and some Year, after the deposits lnd been
made "a person presented the book ana chd%lN".c'
To draw the money. The >s AZURE 10 IN" check WIS
not exactly similar t, that made III the BANK $
signature book and III" discrepancy "'s sufficient l"
lead l paying teller to ask the person who attempted
10 draw tho mom.y some questions a to ha age
birthplace and tlc time w,tcn lac had come to the
country and to compare the ANSWERS with those made
when the account wa, opened By thc dcpO>itor Inc
answers were correctly given, but several questions
which would have Instructed the paying teller a. TO
tho identity Of the person WHO prc''nt'd the cloN
were not asked 50 that the bank onCi0 az not uDla
all tho Information when he might have had. Juder
O'Brien, WIN writes the prevailing OPINION anu NJ
Justice Van Brun mold TINT tho bailh TOOK r'iS"iapc
care - making the payment. hut Judge Andrews
tlhs TINT greater care might N'll have bc'h us' Inc
person whom payment WIS ma Waa h"t .,'
dopo.ltlr lsit one had obtained possession q" the
bank lrDk and aftcrWald secured from the drDo'i"I
by a trick. some information such rs Wnufl c""blc
him 10 II svcr tho Qucsiioi.s which wOull probably
be put nm when n sDueht To OBTAIN ti" money.
scnted even although the rules OF the bank d not
rcquir, any further Inquiry. yet the paying teller or
@er o" cor ,Ini or the bank w be held liable
for payment 10 any other than the owner OF Inc
money.
Tho recent report, Of decisions In this state contain
an unusually large number OF rtichc'S ul iihud ara
undue Influence in Obtrnne deeds, ana The comiS have
shown great desire 70 do abstract justice by seIing
,sldc sucn decd, ~ the >i,are case the General
Term OF the supreme Court not long ago att a9h'
tho deed which had been obt inCd lom Mrs Margaret
Sistarc by her husband. Mrane 'nenls had been
mad cy hcr husband 10 The transfer ana Whilc
his VII. vas entertaining caller AT her house he
called her aside for a moment ana INDUCED hcr |"
sign a paper conveying the properly. 'HHcr Ho
circumstances the Jude thought that undue influence
had been used los the husband. more recent decision
in the tourt Of App arose rom tlc sINliS ol
deed 10y young people 10 tl'lr aunt WIN whom
lived aud wnom they had INC ulHipNt co"
ndcncc, They also knew and trusted the attorney
who accompanIcd the aunt and they dd not carefully
read the documents submitted 10 them. Inc dr'd
was SET aside I'm n case decided in the New lOik
Court Of Common Pleas, at General Ielll, lhc uccu
had boon made by a client 10 his attorney III thIs
case the conveyance upheld becau-" 1t appcdIru
that no fraud was intended and tEc clcht was IN
dcbtcd 20 the attorney FOR services rendered. Inc
lower court had given judgment scttlng lic con
veyancc aside, but the General Term reversed .ne
Judgment. 1t held. however as IT has frequently
been held In other cases. that because Of te relation
lcwccn them I'm which tho Interests 81 INC olen,
are betrayed is supposed to be fraudulent ana vou
until the contrary Is shown The same pIlnclPe
seems to have been applied 10 the relations DclNcCl
hu, band aud wife. and others In whch INC Pclaol
benefited has n commanding influence by rra'on VI
relationship position over the person from ""o'"
the property Is taken