The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1892-08-25
THE DECISION IS FINAL.
IT MAY SAVE TIE MERCHANTS
BANK NEARLY 100000.

Attorney h u. BrWin hOlQ5 Tnat tue
Supreme Court Decision Covers the
Csrhart and Klein Suits as Well as
That OF Guilmartin Against the Bank.
The Demere Suit Is Of "a Different
Nature.
The dispatch 10 yesterdays MORNING
News, giving the decision Of the supreme
court in the case Of L. J. Guilmartin vs.
Merchants National Bank, reversing the
judgment OF the city court, which was in
favor Of the plaintiff. was enuch discussed
among lawyers and business men generally.
Naturally it gave great satisfaction to
the bank officials aud the banks attorneys,
Erwin, duBignon & Chisholm. Mr.. r. G.
Erwin received copies of the decision in
full in yesterday mornings mail. 1t is as
follows
THE DECISION.
Merchants National Bank Of Savannah vs..
Guilmartin.
BY the court: I The essence of a contract Of
bAilment is diligence. and when the bailee shows
the exercise of that degree Of diligence required
by law OF his class he is discharged. although the
thing bailed be stolen or lost For special de-
post, received by bank through its cashier for
Rratuitous safe-keepIng and return to the depos
itor on demand. the bank is not liable If the
IL or frauduently appropriates it TO his own use,
provided the bank has exercised due diligence in
selecting the cashier and in not keeping him in
office after il knew or ought to have known that
he was or had become untrustworthy In steal
Ing or clandestnely appropratinR the deposit
TO his own use the cashier would not be acting
in the banks business or within the scope
OF his employment; he would be repre-
senting himself and not the bank. Foster vs.
Essex Bank, II Mass. 40. Am. Dec 1853; Scott
vs. National Bank, 72 Pa. st. AL, Is Am. Rep,
T. nfECfA Natl al ar,lr Dc
SO Am. Rep. -67; Ray vs. Bank OF Kentucky, 10
Bush 344; Gibin VS. McMullen, l.. r. , P. G. 317;
Edwards on Bsilments, S45; Schouler, Bail
ments $40 ct sea- g Addison, Contr. S904; Bodies,
Banks q Dep, Sc ct seq Morse on Banks, SSl02
w, 201 The Code, SS220l, 1861, does not vary
thus rule in respect to gratuitous bailments, in
asmuch as the degree OF diligence touching
such baments is no higher under the Code
than at common law. Code, S2i04; Chatta-
hoochee National Bank vs. SchleY. 90 Ga. 369.
2. A special deposit is gratuit rs if 1t DO &c
copied for the accommodation of the de postOr
and without any undertaking by him, express
or implied, to pay or do anything as compensa
ton or reward for keeping the deposit.
Judgment reversed
A REVIEW OF THE CASE.
This case was tried IN the city court in
June, 1891. and was argued before the
supreme court In November, Mr.. Gull
martin had placed fifteen second mortgage
bonds OF the South Georgia and Florida
railroad in the hands of Cashier Gadsden of
the Merchants National Bank. After
Gadsden's death it was discovered that he
had disposed of the bonds and appropriated
the proceeds TO his own use. Mr.. Gull
martins demand for the return of the
securities being refused, he entered suit,
claiming that the bank was liable,
The banks contention was that it
had employed cashier enjoying the esteem
of the business world aud regarded as
man of strict honesty until few days be-
fore his death. The bank received no finan-
cial benefit from Mr.. Guimartin's intrust-
ing his securities TO the custody of the
cashier, and claimed that it was not respon-
sible for his actions in the matter. The
trial of the case was watched with great in
terest, and during its continuance the court
room was filed with men prominent
In commercial life. In accordance
with the charge OF Judge Harden
the Jury returned verdict In favor of the
plaintiff for the value of the bonds and in
terest, amounting in all to Sl6, 1863 "a.
Messrs. c. N. West aud ]. r. Saussy rep
resented Mr.. Guilmartiu. Mr.. Saussy's
connection with the case ended when the
verdict was returned in the city court.
The case was then carried to the supreme
court with the result already mentioned.
THE DECISION IS FINAL.
c. INVEST Esq, is out Of the city. and,
as he Is Mr.. Guilmartins sole represent
alive. 1t was impossible yesterday to obtain
any views on the decision from the plant
IFS standpoint. So far as Mr.. Guilmartin
is concerned the decision is stated to be
final. The supreme court having sustained
the banks position, retrial of the case
would merely result in verdict
in accordance with the decision.
| The state courts having been
selected by Mr.. Guilmartin for the trial Of
the suit be must abide by their decision.
The authority of the supreme court Of
| Georgia in a question of commercial law
such as this is just as absolute as that OF the
supreme court of the United States would
be on a constitutional point. The case
could have been tried, If Mr.. Guilmartin
bad so elected, in the United States court
aud then carried TO the court of appeals at
New Orleans. Lawyers state that if this
course had been pursued the case would
| doubtless have ended there just as 1t ends
with the supreme court OF Georgia, because
the points involved are all merely relative
| to commercial law
OTHER SIMILAR SUITS.
There are two other suits against the
| bank which Mr.. Erwin regards as similar
| in character TO that Of MIR. Guilmartin and
which he holds are settled III the banks
favor by the decision of the supreme court.
| One of those is that OF George B. Carhart for
$40, 900 and the other of Valentine Klein for
! $4,000. Some other lawyers regard these
GASES as having points about them
that are not similar 10 those
passed upon by the supreme court
The Carhart suit was tried In the city
court and a decision in favor of the pl aintifT
for the amount claimed was rendered. An
appeal for a new trial was entered, but
hung fire, owing to an arrangement be-
tween the attorneys to await the decision OF
the supreme court In the Guilmartin case
Mr.. Carhart, who is New York banker,
advanced money to Alfred HI. Martin on
the strength OF a receipt showing that GER
tain securities had been deposited with the
cashier of the Merchants National Bank.
The trial developed the fact that
| this was common procedure.
When the note fell due Mr.. Martin was
ready to pay ii the securities pledged by
him we're produced MIR. Carhsrt made a
! demand on the hank for them, but the re-
ceipt and the action Of the cashier were re-
pudiRted by it. This led to the suit. Mr..
Erwin is confident that the legal position
taken by the bank Ia the case is supported
| by the decision just rendered.
WILL BREAK UP OLD PRACTICES.
| The suit of r. M. Demere is of different
| character from those mentioned, and the
| daCisiNn is NOT hAld to cover il