Daily Kennebec journal., 1901-12-20

tue ioss oi Ills poon ana nothing prOvid
ing for exemption from liability II tn
bank under any circumstances paws {
| a person other than the depositor or I,
a person not legally authorized. TIL
pass book, or book of deposit. containe.
certain printed matter. which it is ad
mitted was never adopted by the trustee =.
, by formal vote The treasurer issued tn,
books in this form with the indiyidua
| approval of the trustees. tacitly given
ut will be noticed" continued MIR
Heath. that there is no rule relative t,
the loss of the book and no contract o.
| exemption it, after loss of book and be-
| fore notice thereof the bank pays to an,
| person rot the depositor or to any perso,
| not in fact duly authorized The CON
tract is absolute.
True, the plaintiff said on cross-ex-
aminat ton that he understood that if he
lost his book he was required to notify
the bank The question was put 'thes
books and plaintiff having in mind tn.
provision in the Augusta book relative
to notice of loss assumed that the Andro-
scoggng book contained the same pro-
vision We must admit that as counsel,
we were misled in the same way unit.
in the preparation of this brief We notice.!
that the Androscoggin book contained ne
such provision.
But two deposits were made, tn
original. and the second s1:,s.00 on jun.
l., 1873, This deposit the plaintiff made
in person at the counter OF the bank.
ON Nov. 80. 1895. som. person unknown.
undoubtedly the same man that figured in
Al.
possession of plaintiffs book and OIL
Dee. :. lS?5 presented it 1T the bank
with an order for s321o0 signed Philip s.
Ladd. Witnessed q. g. I.add and pay
able to j. &. Locke. Payment was made
by check on First National Bank st
Lewiston. running to Philip S. I.add.
which came back endorsed Philip :.
Ladd' and by the Winthrop National
Bank The withdrawal book was signed.
by j. G. Locke.
During the month of August. 1909. thi-
same person again fraudul.ntly obtainc
possession Of plaintiffs book and as de
tailed in the report of the Augusta east,
by agreement to De referred 10 this case.
went to Lisbon Falls and from there for
wardctl a collection order to close out tn,
to the Express Company. 1t was signed
Philip S. Ladd.' witnessed by the land
lord and the signature guaranteed by the
express company.
The plaintiff did not discover his loss
till August. 1880 when he promptly noti-
fled the bank. As Il condition under which
this cause was reported, counsel have
agreed not to contest in this court the
fact that Ladd never authorized these
payments and that both orders werr
forgeries. That the same person drew
both orders is not in controversy. That
it was the same man that stole the mOn-
ey through the Augusta Savings Bank is
not in controversy. The most casual oN-
amna lion would show that the sam.
man made All the signatures in both the
reported cases.
MIR. Heath then discussed the contract
claiming that the bank had no defence
unless it can prove that the person re
ceiving the money was in fact duly au-
thorized.
lie thea cited law hearing on the case.
went Oh tp take un the accUal rccl'g. n.c
: he d'fs'.t -. - ;'os,.- I..r ... ....
t,ad vio.atrn tt.r ,-. I-.. Al I...t.... u. ft-
contract "Whi" negligence is inmate
rial" H.. said the facts exhibit gross
negligence.
Norman l.. Basseit. Esq. of the firm
Of Cornish X Bassctt. argued for the Au-
gusta Savings Bank. In the case Of tn
three alleged payments. Attorney Bassctt
argued that they are divisiblc into two
classes. clearly recognized in law as fo:-
lows:
|. False impersona ton Of deposition
This applies to tn first payment
,. False claim OF authority from Il &C.
positor.
On the case of mistaken identity. as :,
general proposition, in the absence uf
stipuations or conditions as to payment
existing between the depositor ard thr
bank, bank pays AT its peril to any
}nc but the person legally entitled to til .
deposit But the bank may by agree
ment with depositorS or by some rule |
II regulation binding on dcpositors pro-
rd" for freedom from liability in cas-. of |
payments under certain circumstances. |
rh" questions then arise. first. was thcr" |
my agreement, rul" or regulation in I'll. |
,isc binding upon III" slaintin: second. |
what Was The extent IF such agreement. |
rul" or regulation. and third did tn, |
bank act within the limits of the same. |
l. Was there any agreement ruiz or |
regulation in this case binding un thr
plaintiff
Ans. There wcr: rules or regulation; !
If the banks.
The bank had at the time the plaintiff |
ip"ncd his first account in 1874 had had |
or YEARS ana continued to hay. Il book |
called I, d"r"Stor's book in which ON |
'pcring an account in person the deposit
II WIS required To sign. If thu account !
VAS opened ny mail or by the agency of |
another person. the dcposIttrs signature |
VAS not required. The person dcpositing ,
night be asked to sign the depositor'S |
lame, or the treasurer Of the bank might |
sign the name. For example: OF the |
en entries in the page Of the depositorS !
book where the plaintiffs name was two |
were made by the Treasurer and eight |
~ the parties themselves. The treasurer |
signed the plaintiff maine III this case
hority from the plaintiff, who did not |
lnow until the trial that his name had |
,een signed by the treasurer
At the beginning Of tins depositor's |
book was the following: Augusta Sav- |
ngs Bank. We whose names are sign |
II in this book depositors in the Au-
IL har