Case Name: Winthrop S. Gilman et al., Pl'ffs, v. The First National Bank of New York, Def't
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-03-31
Citations: 45 N.Y. St. Rep. 147
Docket Number: 
Parties: Winthrop S. Gilman et al., Pl’ffs, v. The First National Bank of New York, Def't.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 45
Pages: 147–152

Head Matter:
Winthrop S. Gilman et al., Pl’ffs, v. The First National Bank of New York, Def't.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
Filed March 31, 1892.)
Bills and notes—Payment—Mistake.
Plaintiffs, who were bankers, notified the payee of a foreign draft-drawn on them that the drawer had not sufficient funds with them to meet it, and were requested to apply upon it what funds of the drawer they had. On the following day the draft was presented with others by-defendant, and plaintiffs’ cashier paid it in full, and claims that at that time he did not know what balance there was on hand to pay it. Held, in the absence of other testimony, that no case of mistake was made out such as would entitle plaintiffs to recover back the excess so paid,, especially as by reason of such payment a protest of the paper was-prevented.
(O’Bbien, J., dissents.)
Exceptions by plaintiffs ordered heard at general term on dismissal of complaint
H. B. Glosson, for pl’ffs; Fisher A. Baker, for deft

Opinion:
Patterson, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered on¡ the dismissal of the complaint at circuit The action was brought, to recover back a sum of money which the plaintiffs claim was-paid by mistake on a draft or bill of exchange presented to them by the defendant and paid on the 10th day of February, 1891. There is no dispute as to the facts, which are, in brief, that a Mrs. Cockran, living at Cadiz, in Ohio, deposited for collection with a. bank located and doing business at that place a bond of a Kansas-township. That bond was sent by the Ohio bank to a Kansas-bank which collected its amount on the 23d January, 1891. The-plaintiffs were the New York correspondents of the Kansas bank, and on the day last named that bank by its cashier drew a sight draft on the plantiffs, which was after some delay received by the 'Cadiz bank and was forwarded by that bhnk to the defendant for •collection.
Meantime, and on the 6th of February, the Cadiz Bank:notified dhe plaintiffs of the existence of the draft, and requested them to hold moneys of the Kansas Bank sufficient to meet it On the '9th February the plaintiffs telegraphed :the Cadiz Bank that ¡the •drawér had not sufficient funds to meet, the draft On-the same day the Cadiz Bank in reply to the telegram last referred to. requested by telegraph • the plaintiffs to apply to the draft what funds they had of the Kansas Bank. There is nothing in the •caseto show the exact state of the account, between .the drawing bank and the plaintiffs, but there were several transactions had between them intermediate the 23d January and the 10th February. ' On the last named day, and as appears from the letter and telegrams above referred to, the plaintiffs, with full knowledge of the fact that there was not enough money in their hands to the -credit of the account to which the draft was to be charged, paid it in full to the defendant. The next day the plaintiffs made reclamation, not of the whole amount paid, but only of the amount of the deficiency in the account of the Kansas Bank. There is nothing in the testimony to establish mistake of the plaintiffs. 'The only witness who testified on that subject is Burnham, the plaintiffs' cashier, and he says he did not know what the balance •on hand was to pay the draft until after the payment was actually made. His principals did, however. In the absence of any other testimony, it is quite clear this draft was paid in the usual course of business, and notwithstanding the plaintiffs knew it was mot good in full on the day preceding its payment. We do not -think a case of mistake was made out such as would entitle the plaintiff to recover, and more especially as it is clear that by rea- vson of the payment a protest of the paper was prevented. It was a foreign bill. Commercial Bank v. Varnum, 49 N. Y., 275. 'The act of .payment of course prevented the protest, and before an .action could be maintained against the drawer on the draft protest was necessary. 2 Dan. on Negot Ina, § 926.
. We think the complaint was properly dismissed, and that the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Van Brunt, P. J., concurs.