The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-02-05
THE BANKS IRRESPONSIBLE
Por The Actions Of Individuals Who
Raise Checks from Original Amounts.
OPINIONS BY The SUPREME COURT.
The Telegraph statutes Are consu'n-
t~ionaI-strict Accountability of
Omcials- Aner-DiscoN-
cred Evidence.

National Bank Of Virginia vs.. Noting.
Affirmed. opinion by Judge Harrison.
A stranger with whom 1t had no busi-
ness relations and whom he was under
no obligation TO accommodate, secured a
check from him for ten dollars on the
National Bank OF Virginia, In exchange
for $40 in currency. when presented ana
paid. 80 had been raised 20 five hunoIea
dollars. Whose IS the loss?
Held. l. Banks are held TO a riga re-
sponsibiity TO their dcpositors. For lne
benefit TO be derived from its use while
in their keeping they undertake the care
and custody Of their customers money
and they are bound 10 honor proper OF
dcrs on IL.
H. however. the banker pays out money
unou an order that IS not genuine ne
must suffer the loss, and 20 justify pay
mcnt must show that the order Is gcnU-
Inc not only In signature but In every re-
spoct. Han Us. Fuller, o Barr and
Cress.. 40
Tho rule requiring the bank 70 know
the customers handwriting was a ways
confined 10 a knowledge OF his signature.
No rule Of law or of the ordinary course
OF business render 1t a matter Of sus-
pici0n that the body of "a check, etc, Is
not in the handwriting of the maker.
Yet a. false or fraudulent alteration IN
the body. after signature, constitutes u
forgery as much ms the stimulation OF
the signature itself. and vitiates the IN
strumcut even in the hands OF a bona
Tide holder for value. though Impossible
20 discover the change boy careful scrp-
tiny. 10 follows that payment hv the
hank b. the loss of the bank and such II
the un0upstiOuable rule except where ths
negligence or lachcs Of the maker has
laid the foundation for the error; as by
writing the check so carelessly as 10
render material alteration easy without
leaving evident traces for detection, in
which case the maker must suffer ths
loss. Morse on Banks. &c. Sec, fNl-
The depositor is charged only with ordl-
nary diligence and care and 20 make the
drawer liable the negligence must DE I'M
mcdiatoly connected with the forgery
Drawing the check 10 the stranger was
not the proximate cause OF the loss but
tho forgery was.
TNDELINERED TELEGRAMS.
Western Union Telegraph Company VS..
Powell. Reversed. opinion hy Judge
buchanan.
The Code Of Virginia. Sections l29l-s2'
provides that "a telegraph company uolhs
business ia this State shall forfeit $il9
for failing TO transmit a. message. ana
the same sun for failure 10 deliver
promptly. where the regulations OF the
company require delivery.
In the declarations We're two counts
one based on each sccuon-and "a de-
murror to the declaration, and TO each
count. which was oyerruled. ana exception
thereto.
The demurrer raised The constitutions
ality of the statutes. as regulations OF
interstate commerce, and. though in this
ease the message was domestic, ana the
IegisH ture clearly has jurisdiction over
such. yet the statutes being general. and
applying 10 both classes o. messages,
and DO being impossible TO separate the
valid from the invalid. they must Doe held
10 ho wholly void. Trade Mirk cases.
lO o.. s.. $50.
Held. 10 was decided 10y this court I'm
Western Onion Telegraph Company vs..
Tyler. 900 Virginia. 20. and same VS..
Bright. I'd. UN. that Section 1922. was not
%rcuucuauf 90 the clause Of the
Federal Constitution. and. for like rea-
sons. and upon the same grounds. Sec
ton 1891 is held TO he not in conflict
with that Constitution. Since the writ
OF error in this case was awarded the
United States supreme Court Western
Union Telegraph Company vs. James. 1C2
u. S.. G5u. has held such provisions as
20 Interstate messages 10 Dee a reasonable
exercise Of the police power Of "a state.
and not GA conflict with the Constitution
in the absence of congressional leeis-
lation. The writ ought not. however.
10 Doc dismissed as improvidently award
cd. because. when aw9rded. this court
had not passed upon Section 1921. nor
had the Federal Court decided the James
case. And jurisdiction having been In
NnLTI nTnnUrNN nnnn one of fn4 FFnunNg
provided in the Constitution ana laws, IL
has jurisdiction for all purposes. though
the amount involved be- less than $500.
Western Union Telegraph Company ".
Bright. 90 Virginia. 1lS-N.
The next error assigned is that though
these statutes Doe held valid. The declara-
ton does not state a good ,a.sc OF ac-
tiou. and the demurrer to clch court
ought 10 have been sustained.
Held. I'm an action on "a penal statute.
where The plaintiff is not authorized 10
declare generally. the offence charged ass
committed or omitted should appear 90
ave been within the provisions OF the
statute. and all necessary circumstance
10 support the action should Doe stated in
the declaration. 4 Minors Inst. l05. @ Rob
Pract. mcw) 6l2. The FIRST court does
state a. good cause OF action. and the
demurrer should have been 0~vrr-ruicd.
hut tho second IS fatally detective. and
tho demurrer should have been sustained
and for this error tho Judgment must toe
reversed. unless 10 appears from the roe
cord that uo injury did or could result
60 the defendant thcrefrom
lntl the code of 1881, there was much
conflict Of opinion whether in "a case
whore "a jury was waived. thc evidence
IN the case. or the facts proved, should
he certified ana the trial court iu this
case certified the facts proved only. hy
sec. aNi d case at law. whether heard
and determined by tho court or tried hy
2 jury. may be- heard in tho apneiiate
court either upon "a certificate OF the
facts or Of The evidence. Where the
court can certify the facts b. ought 20
40 so hut if unable or unwilling 10 Ocr-
tfy the facts because Of conflicting or
compicatca or doubtful testimony. 10
should certify The evidence. Tho facts
certihc1 show that Che message was sent.
ana that ihc mistake Boo the address was
maoe h ls transmission before DO was
delivered Go tAe defendant comnanv.
There being nothing in tho record 20
show that the company DID NOT trans
nit the mcssoec. as received by it. faitn-
fully and impartially. AND as promptly
as practicable. TO the point 20 which IL
was 20 be transmitted and the plaintiff.
having failed 20 prove hls first count. ana
his second count being detective. the
judgment must be reversed. and the
cause remandcd With leave TO the piain-
tiff 90 amend his declaration ir 30 ad-
visd.
no ASSISTANTS
cts Of Norfolk W. Pollard. Reversed.
opinion by Judge RELY.
Held 1: The record must show. I'm