Case Name: BROOKS v. ERIE COUNTY SAVINGS BANK
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1915-07-07
Citations: 154 N.Y.S. 692
Docket Number: No. 284-122
Parties: BROOKS v. ERIE COUNTY SAVINGS BANK.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 154
Pages: 692–694

Head Matter:
BROOKS v. ERIE COUNTY SAVINGS BANK.
(No. 284-122.)
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
July 7, 1915.)
1. Banks and Banking <@=>301—Savings Banks—Production of Passbook —Waiver.
Banking Law (Consol. Laws, c. 2) § 152, providing, relative to savings banks, that the board of trustees may by their by-laws provide for making payments in cases of loss of passbook, or other exceptional cases where the passbook cannot be produced without loss or serious inconvenience to depositors, does not prevent a savings bank from waiving the production of the passbook as required by its by-laws, and such production may be waived, though the deposit is a joint account, which either of two persons is authorized to withdraw. *
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Banks and Banking, Cent. Dig. §§ 1159, 1162-1164, 1166-1168, 1172-1176; Dec. Dig. <@=>301.]
2. Banks and Banking <@=>301—Savings Banks—Payment of Deposits— Negligence.
Where, under the form of the account, a savings bank was authorized to pay a deposit to either a husband or his wife, no question of fact as to its negligence in paying the deposit to the husband without the production of the passbook was presented, in the absence of any circumstances tending to show that it had knowledge or notice sufficient to put it upon inquiry that the husband was not entitled to draw the deposit.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Banks and Banking, Cent Dig. §§ 1159, 1162-1164, 1166-1168, 1172-1176; Dec. Dig. <@=>301.]
Foote and Merrell, JJ., dissent.
<§^For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Appeal from Erie County Court.
Action by Rita Brooks against the Erie County Savings Bank. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, defendant appeals. Reversed, and complaint dismissed.
Argued before KRUSE, P. J., and ROBSON, FOOTE, LAMBERT, and MERRELL, JJ.
Adelbert Moot and S. Fay Carr, both of Buffalo, for appellant.
Louis Braunlein and James Harmon, both of Buffalo, for respondent.

Opinion:
KRUSE, P. J.
Concededly, under the form of the account in question, defendant was authorized to pay the deposit to either the plaintiff or her husband. I think the rule of the bank permitting the secretary to waive the production of the passbook applies to joint accounts such as this, as well as to that of a single individual, and that the defendant had the right to waive the production of the passbook, as provided by the by-law under which the 4eposit was made, and that such waiver on the part of the bank is not contrary to the provisions of section 152 of the Banking Law.
I am also of the opinion that, in the absence of any circumstances tending to show that the defendant had knowledge or notice sufficient to put it upon inquiry that the husband was not entitled to draw the deposit, no question of fact was presented as to its negligence. Upon the undisputed evidence, I think it should be held that the defendant was justified in paying the deposit to the plaintiff's husband, and that the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint should have been granted.
If I am right in this conclusion, it follows that the judgment should be reversed, and the complaint dismissed, with costs, including costs of this appeal. All concur, except FOOTE and MERRELL, JJ., who dissent.