Case Name: Bank of Monroe vs. Field and others
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1842-05
Citations: 2 Hill & Den. 445
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bank of Monroe vs. Field and others.
Judges: 
Reporter: Hill's Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 445–446

Head Matter:
Bank of Monroe vs. Field and others.
The president of a bank having requested the defendant to pay a note belonging to the institution which the latter insisted had been paid, they proceeded to examine the bank books, and during the examination the president declared himself satisfied that- the defendant’s statement was correct; held, in an action by the bank to recover the note, that the declaration of the president was proper evidence for the defendant, as having been made while acting within the scope of his ordinary powers, and being therefore a part of the resgestœ
Assumpsit, tried at the Monroe circuit, in April, 1838, before Dayton, C. Judge. The action was upon a promissory note for $1000, made by the defendants, and payable to the plaintiffs at the City Bank of Albany. The defendants claimed that the note had been paid; and proved, that sometime after the note became due, Field, one of the defendants, was requested by the plaintiff’s president to pay the note in question; Field claimed that he had paid it; and after an examination of the books of the bank, the president became satisfied that he had received the money in payment of the note, and said he had accounted to the bank for it. This evidence being objected to, the objection was overruled, and the plaintiff’s counsel excepted. The jury found a verdict for the defendants, and the plaintiffs now moved for a new trial upon a bill of exceptions.
H. R. iSelden, for the plaintiffs.
• H. P. Norton, for the defendants.

Opinion:
By the Court,
Nelson, Ch. J.
The declarations of the president of the bank were properly received in evidence. He was the financial head of the institution, empowered to take charge of the settlement and collection of its demands, and to compound or discharge them in the usual course of business. He was acting within the scope of his' ordinary powers at the time the declarations were made, and they were a part of the res gestee. The defendant Field had been called upon to settle the note in question, and he insisted that It had already been paid. The books of the bank were referred to with a view to ascertain whether such was the fact; and after they had been examined, the president became satisfied, and admitted the payment. It was an admission made while acting in the business of his agency in respect to the very matters that had been committed to his charge; and it falls, therefore, within the settled rules of evidence in cases of this nature.
New trial denied.