Case Name: HANKOWSKA v. BUFFALO SAVINGS BANK
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1913-03-05
Citations: 140 N.Y.S. 891
Docket Number: 
Parties: HANKOWSKA v. BUFFALO SAVINGS BANK.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 140
Pages: 891–894

Head Matter:
HANKOWSKA v. BUFFALO SAVINGS BANK.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
March 5, 1913.)
1. Appeal and Error (§ 1068 )—Harmless Error—Instructions.
Where on the undisputed facts plaintiff was entitled to recover, the refusal of the court to charge as requested by defendant was immaterial.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 4225-4228, 4230; Dec. Dig. § 1068;* Trial, Cent. Dig. § 475.]
2. Banks and Banking (§ 301*)—Deposits in Banks—Checks—Forgery.
Where plaintiff deposited money under the name of Antonina H., and, not being able to write, always signed her checks by mark, with a certificate of a notary attached, the bank, in paying a check signed by mark of “Antuia” H., with the certificate of a notary known by the teller, and to a person to whom the teller had paid money before, although the passbook was presented (having been stolen), did not exercise ordinary care and diligence, and was not protected.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Banks and Banking, Cent. Dig. §§ 1159, 1162-1176; Dec. Dig. § 301.*] *
Lambert and Robson, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, Erie County.
Action by Antonina Hanlcowska against the Buffalo Savings Bank. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
See, also, 149 App. Div. 929, 133 N. Y. Supp. 1125.
Argued before McLENNAN, P. J., and KRUSE, ROBSON, FOOTE, and LAMBERT, JJ.
Irving R. Templeton, of Buffalo, for appellant.
Farrington & Farrington, of Buffalo, for respondent.
For other case eee game topic & £ number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
McLENNAN, P. J.
[ 1 ] I am of the opinion that upon the undisputed facts appearing in the record the plaintiff was entitled to recover as matter of law, and that, therefore, the refusal of the court to charge as requested was entirely immaterial.
The evidence presented by the plaintiff, none of which is disputed, shows that the plaintiff opened an account with the defendant under the name of Antonina Hankowska, and received a passbook and a special form of check or order, which required the signature to be acknowledged before a notary public. The defendant paid the sum of $200 to one Helen Kaminski upon a forged check, signed "An-her tuia X Hankowska," with the certificate of a notary public attached, cermark tifying that Antuia Hankowska had appeared before him and acknowledged the signature to the check. The passbook was presented at the-time of such withdrawal, it having been stolen from the plaintiff. The-signature card required by defendant at the time of the opening of the account showed the depositor's name to be Antonina Hankowska, and that she signed by her mark. The defendant could not, therefore, under ordinary circumstances, be charged with negligence in failing to-detect forgery in the making of the mark. It assumes to rely upon the rule contained in the passbook providing that the possession of the passbook shall be sufficient authority to warrant any payment made- and entered in it, and upon the facts shown upon the' face of the notary's certificate, which it had the right to presume to be correct.
"It is well settled, however, that payment made to a person who is not in fact entitled to draw the deposit, though he may have possession of the-book and present it at the time of payment, will not discharge the bank, unless it exercised at least ordinary care and diligence in paying the money to the wrong person." Gearns v. Bowery Savings Bank, 135 N. Y. 557, 32' N. E. 249.
In addition to requiring the presentation of the passbook, it was-defendant's duty to use ordinary care and diligence to ascertain whether the check or order presented was signed by the depositor, and not by someone else. The defendant relies solely upon the presumption appearing upon the face of the-notary's certificate to determine this-fact. The presumption to be drawn from that certificate is merely the fact stated in it, viz., that one Antuia Hankowska had signed the-check by her mark, and that she had acknowledged the execution thereof before the notary. I know of no rule of law whereby the defendant would be justified in presuming that such a certificate in reality referred to Antonina Hankowska.
Upon these facts, I think the presumption of law arises that the defendant- failed to exercise any care to ascertain whether the order or check was signed by the depositor, and the court would have been warranted in directing a verdict for the plaintiff, if the defendant showed 'no facts in contradiction. I-am of the opinion that the evidence presented by the defendant in no way contradicts or varies the evidence of" the plaintiff. On behalf of the defendant, it was merely shown that the teller who paid the forged check knew the person who presented" it, had paid her money before, knew the notary who executed the certificate, and knew his signature. None of these facts indicate any care-on the part of the teller, and I fail to see how any-question of fact was-presented upon all the evidence.
This case has been tried three times before a jury, resulting in each-instance in a verdict for the plaintiff. Upon each trial the facts have-appeared substantially as upon the present trial. It seems to me that the refusal to charge as-requested was harmless in any view of th'e.case, and that the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Judgment affirmed with costs. All concur, KRUSE, J., in result in a separate memorandum, except ROBSON, J., and LAMBERT, J., who dissent in an opinion by LAMBERT, J.