Court Opinion

ID: 6236490
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-02-17 20:33:43.914454+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:58:03.945269
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Paxson
delivered the opinion of the court, May 3d 1880.
*397When the plaintiff took his money to the First National Bank of Allentown, and handed it to the cashier for deposit, the bank became responsible therefor. The cashier was the executive officer of the bank, and authorized by the very nature of his office to receive money on deposit. After receiving it, no trick or fraud on his part, by means of which the money was passed over to Blumer & Co., a firm in which the bank officers were largely interested, and appeared to have had the control, could absolve the bank from its liability. No class of men have the confidence of the people to a greater extent than bank officers. Depositors do not deal with them at arms’ length, and can be imposed upon with the greatest ease by such officials. It would be monstrous to allow them to take advantage of the ignorant and unwary, by reason of their position and the confidence which it inspires. It was doubtless a misfortune to this bank to have unworthy officials, if such should prove to be the case. It certainly was unwise to permit its chief officers to occupy a dual position with divided interests, but the consequences resulting therefrom cannot be visited upon those who dealt in good faith with the bank.
This case is ruled in a great measure by Steckel v. The Bank, ante, p. 376. 'It was error to reject the evidence contained in plaintiff’s offer. The facts offered to be proved amounted to a fraud upon the plaintiff, and he was entitled to have that question passed upon by a jury.
Judgment reversed, and a venire de novo awarded.