Case Name: FANNY SCHOENWALD, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THE METROPOLITAN SAVINGS BANK, Defendant and Appellant
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1871-12-31
Citations: 1 Jones & S. 440
Docket Number: 
Parties: FANNY SCHOENWALD, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THE METROPOLITAN SAVINGS BANK, Defendant and Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Superior Court of the city of New York
Volume: 33
Pages: 440–449

Head Matter:
FANNY SCHOENWALD, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THE METROPOLITAN SAVINGS BANK, Defendant and Appellant.
The plaintiff deposited with defendants one hundred dollars. She was given a pass-book by defendants, in which was witten the amount of the deposit and date of its reception, in account form, purporting to' charge defendants as a debtor to plaintiff in that amount. Upon a page of this pass-book, following the entry, were printed rules¡ numbering from one to eighteen inclusive, and headed by the following words printed in capitals and larger type, “ Rules from the Charter and By-Laws.” The eight, eleventh, and seventeenth of those rules read as follows:
“8. All deposits shall be entered in the book of the corporation, and a pass-book shall be given to the depositor, in which the sum deposited by him shall be entered, and which shall be his voucher, and the evidence of his property in the said institution.”
“ 11. On making the first deposit, the depositor shall be required to subscribe his or her assent to be governed by the regulations and by-laws of the institution.
“ 17. The secretary will use his best efforts to prevent frauds ; but all payments to persons producing the deposit-book shall be deemed good and valid payments to depositors respectively.”
The plaintiff wrote her name in a book kept by defendants for that purpose, and wrote the same in German text or script, and took away the pass-book with her.
On the 27th day of September thereafter a man calling himself John Brown, presented to the teller of the defendants this bank-book of defendants, and also a written order purporting to have been made by plaintiff, in this form:
“27352 New York
“ Let the bearer have $60 (sixty dolls),
“ Sept. 27, 1869. o Eahnt Schoenwald.”
This man indorsed the order, received the amount named from defendants; and a return of the pass-book after the amount had been entered therein. -
The signature of the order was very much like the genuine signature of defendant; so much so, that plaintiff, when the same was presented to her and asked if it was her signature, said: “I do not know if it is or not; that looks like my writing;” but she afterwards stated that it was not her signature, because she never gave any one a paper like this. Reid, that these facts did not constitute an agreement between the parties by which the defendants were authorized to pay the deposit to any person presenting the bankbook with such an order (unless the signature to the order was that of plaintiff), and that the handing of a pass-book by defendants to the plaintiff as a voucher of the deposit, and containing the rules and by-laws of the bank, without calling her attention specially to the same, did not constitute a mutual contract, and that the only question for the jury in the case was this: Was the signature to the order the genuine signature of the plaintiff? Opinions of Barbotjr, Ch. J., and Freedman, J. See Spencer, J. (dissenting).'
Before Barbour, Ch. J., and Freedman and Spencer, JJ.
Decided, December 31, 1871.
The plaintiff brings this action to recover sixty-nine dollars, an alleged balance of a deposit of one hundred dollars, made with the defendants.
The defendants admit the deposit having been made, but allege that it was made by plaintiff, and accepted by defendants, subject to the conditions expressed in the charter and by-laws of defendants, of which plaintiff had knowledge. That by said charter and by-laws it is provided that payments will be made to depositors personally, or under their written orders, and that the possession of the pass-book of a depositor shall be deemed evidence of the right of the holder thereof, to draw the money deposited. That a person presented to defendants a draft or order, signed by the plaintiff, for sixty dollars, at the same time exhibited to defendants the pass-book of the plaintiff, whereupon defendants paid the said sixty dollars, and entered the amount thereof in said pass-book. The evidence disclosed the following facts, which are uncontested: That on the 31st day of August, 1869, the plaintiff deposited with defendants at their bank one hundred dollars. At the request of the officer of defendants she wrote her name in a book kept for that purpose at the bank, and wrote the same in German text or script. She was given a pass-book by the defendants, which she afterwards took away and in which was entered in words and figures, in plain English writing or script, the amount of the deposit, and the date of its reception. This deposit was entered inside of the book, in account form, and purported to charge the defendants as a debtor to plaintiff to that amount (one, hundred dollars). On a page or pages before the entry of the deposit, was "written the number of the pass-book, twenty-seven thousand three hundred and fifty-two, after which followed the printed words “bankbook,” under which plaintiff’s name was written in in plain English script. Then followed printed matter, denoting the name and place of business and business hours of the defendants, and directions purporting to be addressed to the owner of the pass-book, and also the names of the officers of defendants.
Upon a page or pages of this pass-book, following the entry of the deposit, were printed certain rules, numbered from one to eighteen, inclusive, and headed by the following words, printed in capitals and larger type, “Rules from the charter and by-laws.” The following are the eighth, eleventh and seventeenth of said rules:
“8. All deposits shall be entered in the book of the corporation, and a pass-book shall be given to the depositor, in which the sum deposited by him shall be entered, and which shall be his voucher, and the evidence of his property in the said institution.
“11. On making the first deposit, the depositor shall be required to subscribe his or her assent to be governed by the regulations and by-laws of the institution.
£ ‘ 17. The secretary will use his best efforts to prevent frauds; but all payments to persons producing the deposit-books shall be deemed good and valid payments to depositors respectively.”
On the 27th of September, 1869, a man presented the bank-book of the plaintiff, to the paying teller of the defendants, and also an order purporting to have been made by the plaintiff in the following form:
“27,352. “NewYokk.
“Let the bearer have $60 (sixty dolls.).
“Sept. 27, 1869. “Fanny Schoenwald.”
The man who presented this order, after endorsing the same as “John Brown,” received the amount named, and a return of the bank-book, after the amount had been entered in the bank-book.
The signature to the order was very much like the genuine signature of the plaintiff, so much so, that plaintiff stated under oath, on its being presented to her and she was asked if it was her signature, “I do not know if it is or not; that looks like my writing.” She afterwards stated that it was not her signature because she never gave any one a paper like this.
After plaintiff received the bank-book, she kept it in her trunk and, as she supposed, locked, until October 19th, 1869, when she took it to the bank and drew thirty-nine dollars, this being the time the facts relating to the order of sixty dollars were discussed between the parties.
Defendants refused to pay these sixty dollars drawn under the supposed forged order.
Defendants’ counsel moved to dismiss the complaint, which was denied and exception taken. He then requested the court to charge,
1. That defendants are entitled to a verdict.
2. That the fact, if proved, that the plaintiff’s attention was not called to the by-laws of the bank at the time of making her deposit, does not relieve the plaintiff from the effect of said by-laws ; but she was bound by the same, and a payment made in accordance therewith was a valid payment.
3. That, if the defendants were bound to call to the plaintiff’s attention the by-laws and regulations governing her deposit, the delivery to her of the pass-book wherein were contained these by-laws and regulations was a sufficient notice to her, and she was bound thereby.
4. That the defendants, under their contract- with the plaintiff, had a right to presume that'the person who presented the plaintiff’s bank-book had a right to receive the money directed to be paid by the order.
5. That, if the payment was made in good faith by the bank to a person presenting the bank-book of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was bound by such payment, even though the order directing the payment was a forgery.
Which being refused, exception was taken. Exception was also taken to part of the judge’s charge, in which he charged “that if the plaintiff did not sign the order, or subsequently ratify it, the bank would be liable.”
The jury found a verdict for the amount of the forged check and interest, sixty-five dollars. Defendants’ counsel moved for a new trial, which was denied and exception taken.
This appeal is from the judgment entered upon the verdict, and from the order of the court denying a new trial.
M. P. Stafford and Horace Graves, for the respondent.
Geo. Putnam Smith, for the appellants.

Opinion:
Barbour, Ch. J.
The pleadings show that the defendant is a corporation; but whether it has a fixed capital, with stockholders who share in the profits, or. has no capital beyond what is furnished by the money of its depositors, does not appear; nor do I deem that question important. It is sufficient that the bank is a corporation, and, therefore, bound by the same rules of law in regard to its dealings with others, which control the actions of natural persons.
Upon, receiving the deposit, the bank became bound to pay the amount to the plaintiff, whenever requested to do so by a check or order signed by the depositor, unless a special contract was made with her, either in terms or by legal implication from the acts of the parties.
Undoubtedly an agreement between the parties, by which the bank was required to pay the amount of the deposit, or any portion of it, to such person as should present the bank-book, or any other token, would have been valid. But the mere handing over to the depositor of a bank-book, containing the rules and bylaws of the bank, without calling her attention to its contents, did not constitute a mutual contract upon which the minds of the parties, met. That question has several times been passed upon in this court, and is no longer an open one here (See Ramaley v. Leland, 6 Robt. 358 ; S. C., 43 N. Y. 539). The cause, therefore, was properly left to the determination of the jury upon the single question as to the genuineness of the plaintiff's signature.
The judgment ought to be affirmed,with costs.
Freedman, J.
Although, as a general rule, every person who deals with a moneyed institution, is bound by its regulations, lawfully made, although not communicated to him at all (Warhus v. Bowery Savings Bank, 5 Duer, 71 ; affirmed in 21 N. Y. 543), yet the by-law under which the savings bank resists the repayment of the deposit in this case is not a mere regulation for the return to the plaintiff of her money.
It is invoked to work a forfeiture in consequence of the happening of a certain event, over which the plaintiff has had no control.
There being no evidence of negligence on plaintiff's part which contributed to the loss, as in Kelly v. The Industrial Savings Bank, 2 Daly, 227, and no proo that the bank had the power and capacity to establish the rule in question, the judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed with costs.