Court Opinion

ID: 6247936
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-02-17 21:05:27.260974+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:59:20.738997
License: Public Domain

Opinion by
Mb. Justice Bbown,
This judgment cannot be disturbed unless we overrule Land Title and Trust Co. v. Northwestern Nat. Bank, 196 Pa. 230. When the opinion in that- case was delivered by our Brother Fell it expressed the view of the majority of the court, as then constituted, after a most careful consideration- of the question involved; and it is approved by a majority of the court as now composed, who have also duly considered the question on what is really a reargument of it on this appeal. We do not feel called upon to say more of the opinion of Justice Fell, which, in a manner satisfactory to us, clearly expresses our views. In the note to the report of the case in 50 L. It. A. 75, there will be found numerous cases sustaining and vindicating it, the justified comment of the annotator *214being, “ It is apparent from the foregoing cases that the drawer of a check, draft or bill of exchange, who delivers it to an impostor, supposing him to be the person whose name he has assumed, must, as against the drawee or a bona fide holder, bear the loss where the impostor obtains payment of, or negotiates, the same.”
' The only fact not developed on the first trial, which was proved on the second, was that the check was taken to the banking department of the institution by the person to whom it had been delivered and payment demanded. The paying teller refused to pay it unless the person presenting it was identified, whereupon the latter said he would deposit it in his own bank. This was the person to whom the settlement clerk of the appellant had handed the check, intending to designate him as the payee, and the appellee, which had no knowledge of the teller’s refusal to pay unless the holder of the check was identified, is not to be affected by such refusal, any more than if the check had been presented at another bank and payment had been refused for the same reason; for the banking department of the trust company must be regarded as separate and distinct from that which issued the check. It was what the appellant did at the time it handed the check to the impersonator of Bissey that stands in the way of its recovery from the appellee, which paid the check to the indorsee of the person to whom the appellant had issued it as its payee. It is not seriously argued that the refusal of the paying teller to pay without identification materially changes the situation,
The 'judgment is affirmed.
Dean and Potter, J. J., dissenting.
We dissent from the judgment of the majority of the court in this case on the grounds set out in the dissenting opinion filed when the case was first before us.