The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1903-11-20
SUPREME COURT
BANK WINS CASE
The scanlon-Gipson Company Cant
Recover for Young Gross
Populations.
Court Holds in Effect That the Com
pany, Not Bank, Was
Negligent.

The SCaDlOn- G1pSon LumDeT Coll"
pany cannot collect from the Ger
mania bank the $4,000 which it lost
by the populations of young Cross,
now serving a sentence at the st.
Cloud reformatory. Cross repeatedly
deposited checks at the German1a
bank. taking out 500 in cash. which
he said was for the use of the firm.
He admitted that he converted the
money to his own use. His employers
sued the bank to recover. alleging that
the bank was negligent in paying the
money to Cross. The court holds that
the negligence really rested on the
employers of Cross. They did not ex-
anime either the accounts or the bank
book during all this time. and Judge
Collins says in the opinion:
TT seems almost incredible that
concern transacting the amount of
business that this plaintiff did should
have permitted an employe to conduct
it's financial affairs without the slight
est oversight. Its methods were a
continual inducement to wrongdoing,
and actually invited Cross to the COM
mission of the unlawful acts. That he
yielded to the temptation and became
q criminal is not very surprising
The syllabus Is as follows;
gcanlon- Gipson Lumber Company, Appel
liant, VS.. Ger1nana. Ba nix, Respondent
First-It Is within common knowledge
that the object Of q. bank pass, or deposit
book Is to inform the depositor from time
to time what the condition of his account
is as appears upon the books of the bank.
When such a. book Is sent to the bank to
be written UP and returned with cancelled
vouchers, 1t IL In effect a demand on the
part of the depositor to know what the
hank claims to be a. statement of his sc-
count and return of the book with the
vouchers is an answer to that demand.
Second--Held. that the testimony was
sufficient in this case to warrant the jury
in finding that the defendant bank had
properly accounted to plaintiff for the
amount Of certain checks which had been
collected by 1t. thru a clearing house.
which amount undoubtedly, had been re-
ceived in cash from the bank by an en-
ploye Of the plaintiff who assumed to have
authority to receive the money.
Third-Ield, further, that the testi-
rnony in other respects was sufficient to
sustain a, verdict in favor of defendant
FourtIa-Ield, further that, on the tes-
tirnony, the case is one in which the doc
trine Is strictly applicable, that where a
loss must be borne by one or the other of
whose fault or negligence the loss &C
CURED.
Order affirmed. Collins, ].
Damage Case Dismissed.
In a Minneapolis personal injury
case the court af1lrmS the action OF tn e
district court, which directed a verdict
for the defendant. The syllabus:
Emma M. Dixon. as Administrative OF
the estate of Charles e. Dixon. deceased
Appellant, VS.. Union Iron Works, Re
spondent.
First-The rule requiring the master tc
exercise a general supervision over the
work of his servants does not require theil
protection from the negligence and care.
lessness of fellow servants, nor extend tc
dangers and risks that are apparent anc
obvious, or that might be discovered by
the exercise of reasonable care and pr,I.
,dence. ......'
Second---Tt is held, on the facts stated il
the opinion, that the superintendent Ii
charge of defendants machine shop, was
not. in respect to the negligence charged
In the complaint a. vice principal, but OF
the contrary a fellow-servant of plaintiff
1ntestate; and, further, that plaintiff In
testate assumed the risks and dangers re
sulting in the injury complained Of.
.Third--Declaration and statements o
a. deceased person as to the cause of al
injury which resulted in his DEATH tendin,
toexoulpate his employer from the charg
of negligence respecting the injury. he'll,
competent evidence against his admins
tratrix in an action for damages agains
the employer under the statute for negli
gently causing such death.
Order affirmed. Brown, j.