Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1902-07-21

depositor and who presented the bank
book of such depositor, without having
in their possession in some convenient
place for ready reference and COMPARE
son the signature of that depositor, if
he could write, and without obtaining
the signature of the person presenting
the book for such comparison, and
without requiring any proof of the
identity of the person demanding pay
ment, other than the possession of the
bank book, had not adopted reasonably
safe methods of doing business, and
did not exercise reasonable care to pre-
vert making payment to a person not
entitled to 1t. And If a comparison of
the signature of the person presenting
the book with the genuine one of the
derositor on file would have been suf-
ficient to have prevented the fraudu-
lent imposition, then such payment Is
no defense to an action by the de-
positor against the bank to recover the
money paid over by it under such cir
cumstances. The court decides there
fore, and for other reasons and facts
stated in the opinion of the court, that
this payment of the sum of $3.50 was
not made under such circumstances as
to relieve the bank from it's liability to
the plaintiff.
Next. as to the effect if any, of this
same regulation, upon the liability of
the bank for the amounts paid by it
upon the orders that We're forged.
Another bylaw printed in the deposit
books contains the provision in rela-
ton to the withdrawal of funds:
Money deposited may be withdrawn
N " n q 1pnOSitOr
or by any other person duly authorized,
at any time without notice, when there
are funds on hand unappropriated.
So that the contract of the bank was
to pay to the depositor in person or to
some person duly authorized to receive
it, and in either case upon presenta-
ton of the book. But this regulation,
which has been considered above, is
limited by it's own language to cases
where the officers are unable to identi
fly the depositor. 1t does not purport
to apply to the case of a payment made
to a person who does not pretend to be
the depositor, but who does claim to
be duly authorized by the depositor to
receive the payment. And there was
no other bylaw which affects the
question of the banks liability as to
such a payment. There being then no
other, the bank made these payments
upon its peril as to the genuineness of
the orders. Such has always been the
decision of the courts whenever the
question mas arisen, and no authority
to the contrary was cited at the argu-
ment.
Whether the plaintiff was negligent
or not in not discovering the loss of
| his book and notifying the bank there
| of before any or all of these payments
were made, is not material upon either
branch of the case. Even if he was
negligent in this respect, his negligence
| did not excuse the bank officers from
| the exercise of reasonable care in the
adoption of suitable means of prevent
| ing such a mistake and in making
payment to Il person pretending to be
| the depositOr.
| The plaintiff is accordingly entitled
| to recover the aggregate of these three
payments, made to persons unauthor-
| lied to receive them, $2097.17, together
with interest to be computed in ac
cordance with the stipulation of the
parties in the case.
Judgment for plaintiff for $2097.17
with interest in accordance with Stipu-
| Iation of parties in the case.
Reed July 18th, 1902.