Year: 1866

SUPREME CoURr OF PENNsYLvANIA--Chie Jus
tice Wood ward, and Justices Strong Read, aud
Agnew.-The following important opinion oil
the Supreme Court deciding that party de-
posting in bank check, with knowledge of
the fact that the drawers of the check had, at
the time, no funds there TO meet it, is guilty OF
assisting in fraud, and cannot hold the bank
responsible on q credit given his account on
the deposit of the check;- .-


Peterson Co. vs. The Union National Bank Error


to the District Court Of PntqdelphtG'


Tnat the check of stamford & Houston was not
actually paid, is conceded fact No more is claimed
than thai the bank paid IT, in legal effect, by cnarg
plaintiffs But what OF thatg surely it needs
argument to prove that the plaintiffs can retain
credit obtained by their fraud. The drawing check
upon bank in which The drawer has no funds, and
utter1ng il, is fraud 1t amounts to false arma-
ton that the money is there to meet it, hence it
O 0eceit, pracilsed upon any person to whom the
check may be negotiated. and equally upon the
bank ~ on which it may be drawn 1t Is manifestlY
impossible Tor the officers of bank TO Keep IL
memory the state of each depOsitor's account To a
certain extent confidence is reposed in tho deposifo
That he VIII not present EoT pSymenL6 cneck which
be has not provided funds to meet aud the abuse of
that confidence is dishonest. It is not easy to
drawn BY another to present 1t for payment, when
he knows that the drawer has no funds in bank to
meet it.. His kno Wedge makes him party TO the
rauo OF the drawer and he becomes wiling assist


Itwas therefore most important inquiry in this
case whether the plaintiffs the time when they sent
the check to the bank to be credited to their account
knew that stamford & houston the drawers, had
no funds to meet 1t. If they had such knowledge
they made themselves arties to the false affirmation
OF the drawers, and thus secured the cIedlt which
they seek now to enforce And we are of opinion
that the was correctly submitted to the jury
The evidence was that the check presented after
one O'clock and there was very considerable evil
dence that before that hour the plaintiffs had been
informed that the drawers would not make the
check good Ii would then have been gross error
had the Court drec ed verdict The plaintiffs or
refused to submit to the jury the question whether
check irauduently presented, that is presented
with knowledge that Stamford & Houston had no
funds bank to meet it, knowledge withheld from the
officers OF the bank. Ihe principal case relIe1 upon
by the plaintiffs Levy VS.. The Bank Dal. 236, and
Bin. 36) IS distinguished from the present by the
very important fact that the depositor there was
ignorant OF the woTthlessness of the check wnen de-
posted and obtained a credit Tor it's amount


We hold, then, that the exceptions taken to the
charge OF the learned President of the District
Court all unfounded. And so are the exceptions
to the aomisslon and rejection of evidence. They
are all unmportant, except the first; and that will
appear, from what has been saId to be uusustained
1t certainly material fact that the deposit of
the check was not made until after the ainfs had
been informed that one of the drawers had gone
away, and that the check could not be met r..


he second. third, fourth, and fifth assignments
of error may be dismissed with the remark that they
are immaterial. Even II there was error the
rulings of the Court referred to- which we do not
admit it was entirely harmless.


The ind pment il affirmed