Case Name: The United States National Bank, Resp't, v. The Homestead Bank, App'lt
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1891-10-29
Citations: 40 N.Y. St. Rep. 870
Docket Number: 
Parties: The United States National Bank, Resp’t, v. The Homestead Bank, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 40
Pages: 870–871

Head Matter:
The United States National Bank, Resp’t, v. The Homestead Bank, App’lt.
(City Court of New York, General Term,
Filed October 29, 1891.)
Banks—Cleap.ing house.
Plaintiff undertook to do defendant’s business through the clearing house, provided defendant kept a certain amount on deposit with it. Defendant failing to do so, an agreement was made that a certain amount should be allowed for such services, for a balance of which this action was brought. Eeld, that a motion to dismiss was properly denied, and a judgment for plaintiff would not be disturbed.
Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered on verdict.
Walter L. McCorkle, for resp’t; Charles F. McLean, for app’lt.

Opinion:
Newburger, J.
The plaintiff brought this action to recover the balance of an amount due upon a contract for services in clearing for defendant for over a year and transacting its business in the New York Clearing House.
It appears that the defendant started business as the Ninth Avenue Bank, bnt subsequently changed its name to the " Homestead Bank." It then applied to the plaintiff to secure the facilities of the Clearing House, and plaintiff undertook to do the business of the defendant through the Clearing House, provided defendant would keep on deposit with plaintiff $20,000 as a compensation.
Defendant failed to keep on deposit with the plaintiff the amount agreed, and an agreement was then made that $1,200 should be allowed, to plaintiff for its services in the Clearing House, of which sum $500 was paid.
The case was properly submitted to the jury.
There are no exceptions either to the charge or in the admission of testimony, that show error on the part of the trial justice.
The motion to dismiss was properly denied, and the judgment must be affirmed, with costs.
Ehrlich, Ch. J., and Vah Wyck, J., concur.