Case Name: New Amsterdam Casualty Company, Jacob L. Newman, as receiver of Union Indemnity Company, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, complainants-appellants, v. The National Newark and Essex Banking Company, Fidelity Union Trust Company, Franklin-Washington Trust Company, Livingston State Bank, Kearny National Bank and The Kearny National Bank, defendants-respondents
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1936-01-31
Citations: 119 N.J. Eq. 540
Docket Number: 
Parties: New Amsterdam Casualty Company, Jacob L. Newman, as receiver of Union Indemnity Company, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, complainants-appellants, v. The National Newark and Essex Banking Company, Fidelity Union Trust Company, Franklin-Washington Trust Company, Livingston State Bank, Kearny National Bank and The Kearny National Bank, defendants-respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Equity Reports
Volume: 119
Pages: 540–541

Head Matter:
New Amsterdam Casualty Company, Jacob L. Newman, as receiver of Union Indemnity Company, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, complainants-appellants, v. The National Newark and Essex Banking Company, Fidelity Union Trust Company, Franklin-Washington Trust Company, Livingston State Bank, Kearny National Bank and The Kearny National Bank, defendants-respondents.
[Argued October 15th and 16th, 1935.
Decided January 31st, 1936.]
Messrs. McDermott, Enright & Carpenter (Mr. James D. Carpenter, Jr., of counsel), for the appellants.
Messrs. Hood, Laferty & Campbell (Mr. Louis Hood, of counsel), for the respondent Fidelity Union Trust Company.
Messrs. Pitney, Hardin & Skinner (Mr. Corwin Howell, of counsel), for the respondent The National Newark and Esssex Banking Company.
Mr. Rogers Hinds, for the respondent Franklin-Washington Trust Company.
Mr. Joseph Steiner, for the respondent Livingston State Bank.
Messrs. Lindabury, Steelman, Zink & Lafferty (Mr. James L. R. Lafferty, of counsel), for the respondents Kearny National Bank and The Kearny National Bank.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
We are in full accord with the reasoning and conclusions of the opinion filed by Vice-Chancellor Backes in the court of chancery; and the decree is therefore affirmed.
We do not find it necessary, in reaching this conclusion, to consider the soundness of the view stated by the author of Perry on Trusts (7th ed.) 177, and incorporated in the opinion, that, although the depositor's conduct or course of dealing "may bring to the notice of the bank circumstances which would enable it to know that he is violating his trust, such circumstances do not impose upon the bank the duty or give it the right to institute any inquiry into the conduct of its customer, in order to protect those for whom the customer may hold the fund, but between whom and the bank there is no privity," and we therefore express no opinion thereon.
Decree affirmed.
For affirmance—The Chief-Justice, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, JJ. 12.
For reversal — None.