Case Name: MOORE v. RIVERSIDE BANK
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1899-01-23
Citations: 55 N.Y.S. 615
Docket Number: 
Parties: MOORE v. RIVERSIDE BANK.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 55
Pages: 615–616

Head Matter:
(25 Misc. Rep. 720.)
MOORE v. RIVERSIDE BANK.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
January 23, 1899.)
Banks and Banking—Title to Checks Deposited.
' A check deposited with a bank by a customer, and credited in her account, in her pass book, thereupon became the property of such bank, anal for the amount thereof it became indebted to her, where the evidence offered for the purpose of showing that it had not been received and credited as money was conflicting.
Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan, Tenth district.
Action by Etta E. Moore against the Riverside Bank. Prom a judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before BEEKMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and GIEGERIOH, JJ.
Lyman L. Settle, for appellant.
Percival S. Menken, for respondent.

Opinion:
BEEKMAN, P. J.
The plaintiff, having an account with the defendant, deposited with the bank a certified check, which was received by it, and credit given to the plaintiff therefor in her pass book. In the course of transmission to the bank on which it was drawn, the check was lost; and the defendant, taking the position that it was the property of the depositor, and not of the bank, refused to recognize the credit which it had given the plaintiff therefor when the deposit was made. The plaintiff accordingly brought this action for the recovery of the amount of the bank's indebtedness to her, and judgment was awarded in her favor.
The law is well established in this state that upon a deposit being made by a customer in a bank, in the ordinary course of business, of money or of drafts or checks received and credited as money, such money, drafts, or checks become the property of the bank in absolute ownership. Bank v. Loyd, 90 N. Y. 530; Cragie v. Hadley, 99 N. Y. 131, 1 N. E. 537; People v. St. Nicholas Bank, 77 Hun, 159, 164, 178, 28 N. Y. Supp. 407. The rule, under certain conditions, is subject to qualification, to which, however, it is unnecessary to refer, as such conditions do not exist here. There was some evidence offered in the case tending to show that the check in question was not received by the bank, and credited as money,* bat there was a conflict upon this point, and in this regard, as well as in all other cases where there was any issue of fact, the question must be held to have been resolved by the trial justice in favor of the plaintiff, to whom judgment has been awarded. The case therefore is one which comes directly under the rule of law above stated. .When the check in question was deposited, it became the property of the bank; and the latter thereupon became Indebted to the plaintiff for its amount, and the recovery of the check and the sum due thereon was a matter of concern to the defendant alone. The acts of the plaintiff in facilitating the efforts of the bank in that regard were gratuitous, and cannot be used to her disadvantage. The judgment was right, and should be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.