Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial., 1906-03-27
mon SUIT GRANTED.
In the Case Of the National Dredging Co
rs. the Farmers Rank

tion for a non-suit.
10 disrosing OF the motion for a
hon'suit the court briefly summarized
the facts disclosed by the testimony
OF the plaintiff, as follow: II stated
that both parties in the suit were
delaware coTporations, whose chief
places Of business we're in the city of
wilmington that from February 23d,
1891, to January llth, 1903, the Ma
uoual Dredging Co. deposited with
the Farmers Bank ne rly 81, 600, COO,
sublsot TO check. Tnis amount had
neen properly paid out except the sum
ot O,s3l.52, which the company
claims was wrongiully paid by the
oans upon altered OF forged checks to
tne number of ia, aud bearing dates
rom July Ith, 1897, to December 7th,
| 1902
Toe deposits we're made in the bank
/ by William ii. Ohurchman, secretary
| OF the company, in charge Of its office,
aud its representative in this city. |
/ These deposits we're entered upon the |
bank pass book Of the company aud /
which the company kept. The de- |
| posted money WIS paid out only upcn |
checks signed by George q. Barker, |
treasurer
The pass book was written up, set.
Elements made, and the company's |
balance 10 hank ascettained twelve
times during tho period 10y this con-
troversy.
Upon each settlement the checks
heretofore paid 10y the bank we're
surrendered and delivered with the
passhook to William Il. Chutchmau,
ana remained IN the possession Of the
company up to the commencement OF
the action. Tho altered or forged
checks we're 80 delivered.
All the disputed checks were signed
by George q. Barker, treasurer. The
alterations conss sted in drawing two
ines through the words the order OF, -
before the name Of the payee in each
check, and in writing after the name
of the payes the words 'or bearer,
which alterations, it is claimed, were
made without authority, and after the
checks we're signed.
The court also stated that the first
two Of tue disputed checks, daIed re-
spectively July 9TH and August Stb.
1897, we're delivered to the plaintiff
company with the settlement OF the
pass hook on August 18th, 1897, and
that like deliveries of the disputed
checks we're made in each of the sue
ceeding settlements.
The method of the company in paying
its bills seems to have been that tue
secretary, William II. Churchman,
received the bills, filled out the checks,
. sent them to George q. Barker, the
treasurer, wherever be might be from
time to time. Barker signed the
, checks and returned them to Church
man for distribution to creditors. The
evidence shows that ChuTohman made
. ! hr - karN tho kunE knnl nf the
Office of the company in this city, had
! the hook settled from time to time
yeceivtd the checks surrendered by
: the bank. and was paid personally by
the bank the amount of money repre-
, seuted by the altered checks, and that
under the by laws Of the company, in
the absence of the president and vice.
} president, Chuhshman acted as pIeHi-
dent.
tits manifest pd conceded in thisoase
that il the company, by it's treaurer or
other competent person, had examined
the account AMI the checks returned
in the settlement OF august 18th, 1897,
which contained the first two of the
altered checks, that il would have dis
covered the alteration and forgery al
that time, and thus would have pre-
vented any subsequent loss.
The delivery to Churohman, the sec
retary, was a delivery to the company
itself, as a matter of law, and no ex
animation was ever made until Janu
. ary, 1903, more than i've years after
2 such information might easily hav'
. been obtained by the company.
Each subsequent settlement excep
, ting the last, which was made afte
Churchman' death, presents the same
= conditions, except to the time inter
, vening between the settlements ant
= the actual discovery of the forgery.
y The Investigation OF anyone Of thes
accounts would have been sufficient t.
10 have saved the company from iurthe
loss, but by reason Of Its failure {
70 examine the condition Of it's accounts
20 as returned to it by the bank, tn
company for more than i've years, pc I
mitted the forged checks to be pal
by the bank.
as E.sTne court then quoted, in substan
Id tiation of its opinion, certain cases
Ut showing that the depositor owes TO tn
as bank the duty of exercising due dill
IS pence both in discovering forgery, an
OF in giving notice after knowledge G
ot forgery. 1t would be unreasonable
}. therefore, the court held, to permit
depositor neglieently to sleep upon hi
riRhts, year after year, making n
be examination, and yet hold the ban
on responsible for losses sustained b
ok reason of his own negligence 10 tailin
on to make an examination IN reason
he able time.
he The decision concludes as follows
sIt seems, therefore, to a majority {
the court under the circumstances
this case, that the negligence of q
- nlaintiff company was so gross as
.' defeat its right to recover in this su
~ as matter Of law, and that we Wou
not be justified in submitting the fac
TO be determined by the Jury. In
conelusion has been forced upon US
the evidence and we deem it unnece
nit sary tc consider other phases OF Il
asst case urged in the support OF this mol
suit.
gu Chief Justice Lore advanced IN gran
sti- ine the non suit, but Judge Spruan
liul dissented.
ASK Judae Boyce said he bad failed
disoover any evidences, which wou
warrant the jury ia dFa@ing GO
olusion that the bank negligently no
orad any OF the altered checks.
He said, as the case now stands
fore the court 1.-THE plaintiff haVi
disreearded its duty to the bank
UPWARDS Of five years. has passed
yond the stage in the transactions
# tween the plaintiff and the bank WI
the alleged negligence OF the oanK
the paymsnt OF the altered chee
y might be a question OF TACT Tor
my. had the plaintiff exercised reas'
lnot able diigenos beth TO disown the
cred teTations and consequent ioteetleS