Case Name: Roxana Kelley, Appellant, v. Ann Augusta Foster et al., as Administrators, etc., Impleaded, etc., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-02-10
Citations: 5 Silv. Sup. 476
Docket Number: 
Parties: Roxana Kelley, Appellant, v. Ann Augusta Foster et al., as Administrators, etc., Impleaded, etc., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Silvernail's Supreme Court Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 476–480

Head Matter:
Roxana Kelley, Appellant, v. Ann Augusta Foster et al., as Administrators, etc., Impleaded, etc., Respondents.
Supreme Court, Second Department, General Term,
February 10, 1890.
Banks. Liquidation.— The liquidator of a bank cannot be held liable for a note of which there is no proof except its entry in the bills-receivable book of the bank, in the absence of evidence of its collection by him, especially after ten years have elapsed from the last payment by him to the stockholders.
Appeal from judgment dismissing complaint.
Appellant has title to 1640 shares of stock of the Croton River National Bank, through mesne assignments from James E. Kelly, the former president of the bank. This action is brought in behalf of herself and other shareholders who may join therein against the administrators of Francis E. Foster, deceased (the bank being joined as a defendant), to have an account taken of the moneys of the bank received by said Foster after it went into liquidation and not paid over or accounted for, and of any indebtedness or liability of said Foster to the bank, and of the assets belonging to the bank. The complaint also prays that a receiver be appointed to receive the moneys, if any, that may be found due on such accounting, and to sell and convert into money the other assets of the bank, and that the appellant and said other shareholders may be paid their proportion of the amount found on such accounting, and of the avails of said assets, etc.
The court sent the case to Ambrose Ryder, Esq., to take the account prayed for, and to report the amount, if any, that might be found due the appellant on such accounting.
The referee reported that said Foster had received and not accounted for certain specified sums, amounting with interest to $39,391.74, of which there was due to the appellant $9,912.43, and also reported assets belonging to the bank, consisting of a balance of $1,029.36, remaining in the First Rational Bank of Brewsters, of a deposit made by said Foster of moneys of the defendant bank, and of $20.74 cash found in one of the bank’s safes, and two safes, the appellant’s share of said deposit being $844.08.
The decision of the trial justice dismissed the complaint for the sole reason he finds no direct testimony to charge Mr. Foster’s estate with the payment of the claims set up in this action.
William A. Abbott, for appellant.
Calvin Frost, for respondents.

Opinion:
Barnard, P. J.
In May, 1874, the Croton River Ra tional Bank went into voluntary liquidation. Francis E. Foster was the cashier of the bank. He collected the assets and paid the debts of the bank, and paid to the stockholders the full par value of the shares and twenty-five per cent, beyond. The last payment was made December 11, 1876.
Foster died in November, 1886. There was no question made as to the failure of the cashier to pay over all he had received during his life, something over twelve years after the bank went into liquidation, and nearly ten years after the last payment to the stockholders. Every intendment is in favor of the cashier after this lapse of time and long silence of the stockholders.
The proof fails to show that the deceased cashier ever collected moneys which he has not accounted for. On December 23,1873, a note was made by one Howes for $5,708.07, due in six months, with interest. There is no proof the note Avas ever paid to the bank, and there is no proof connecting the bank with it except that it is entered as bills receivable in the bills-receivable book of the bank.
The note belonged to the plaintiff and the deceased cashier unless the bank discounted it, and this is not proven by the entry of the bills-receivable book. This account does not show that the note was paid. It was the habit of the bank officers, whenever a bill receivable was paid, to enter the amount on a ticket stating from whom it was received. This proof is equally inconclusive as to the note called the town hall note. The claim is based upon a memorandum found in the safe of the bank in the cashier's handwriting. There is nothing upon the memoranda to create a personal liability upon the cashier. They are wholly insufficient and inconclusive, and, in the absence of proof explaining them, mean nothing. The fact that a bank book, which of necessity is more or less in the handwriting of the cashier, creates á liability personally upon him as if he was responsible for all credits which appear upon the book to have been received, will be too severe a rule as between the bank and its officers. The whole truth would need the other books of the bank. These are the chief items relied upon. The proof fails to establish them as against the cashier.
The judgment should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.
Pratt, J., concurs.