114 A. 506 (Pa. 1921), 433, Union Nat. Bank v. Farmers' & Mechanics' Nat. Bank

Docket Nº:433
Citation:114 A. 506, 271 Pa. 107
Opinion Judge:MR. JUSTICE SIMPSON:
Party Name:Union National Bank v. Farmers & Mechanics National Bank, Appellant
Attorney:Theodore F. Jenkins, for appellant. Joseph J. Brown, with him Henry P. Brown, for appellee.
Judge Panel:Before MOSCHZISKER, C.J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ.
Case Date:July 19, 1921
Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 506

114 A. 506 (Pa. 1921)

271 Pa. 107

Union National Bank

v.

Farmers & Mechanics National Bank, Appellant

No. 433

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

July 19, 1921

Argued: April 25, 1921

Appeal, No. 433, Jan. T., 1921, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. No. 1, Phila. Co., March T., 1918, No. 2854, on verdict for plaintiff, in case of Union National Bank v. Farmers & Mechanics National Bank. Reversed.

Assumpsit against a collecting bank to recover the amount of twelve checks aggregating $1,595.62. Before SHOEMAKER, J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $1,872.45. Defendant appealed.

Error assigned, among others, was refusal of defendant's motion for judgment n.o.v., quoting the record.

The judgment of the court below is reversed and judgment is here entered for defendant non obstante veredicto.

Theodore F. Jenkins, for appellant. -- It was the duty of appellee on the receipt of each check to examine it and if a forgery to notify appellant within a reasonable time: Iron City Bank v. Bank, 159 Pa. 46; Myers v. Bank, 193 Pa. 1; McNeely Co. v. Bank, 221 Pa. 588; Marks v. Bank, 252 Pa. 304; U.S. Nat. Bank v. Bank, 268 Pa. 147; United States v. Bank, 214 U.S. 302; United States v. Bank, 252 U.S. 485; Houser v. Bank, 27 Pa.Super. 613.

Joseph J. Brown, with him Henry P. Brown, for appellee. -- It was not shown that appellant was, in fact, acting as the agent of the Commonwealth Trust Company.

Assuming, for argument's sake merely, that appellant was acting as the Commonwealth Trust Company's agent, it was not shown that plaintiff had notice of that fact: U.S. Bank of Portland v. Bank, 268 Pa. 147.

It is not shown that any relationship of principal and agent existed between appellant and Hershman.

Before MOSCHZISKER, C.J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ.

OPINION

Page 507

[271 Pa. 109] MR. JUSTICE SIMPSON:

I. Leiberman was a bookkeeper for Wapner & Rushansky, and was paid his salary, sometimes in cash and sometimes by checks drawn by them upon their account in the Union National Bank, the plaintiff in this case. On December 17, 1917, Leiberman requested Lawrence Hershman to cash a check of that date, which purported to be drawn to his, Leiberman's, order, by his employers, on their account with plaintiff. Hershman refused to do this until he was sure the check was good, whereupon, by agreement, it was endorsed by Leiberman, deposited by Hershman in his account with the Commonwealth Title Insurance & Trust Company, which, in turn, endorsed and delivered it to the Bank of North America, so that it could be collected through the Clearing House Association, of which plaintiff, the Bank of North America and defendant, the Farmers & Mechanics National Bank, were members, but the trust company was not. Having received notice that the check had been duly paid by plaintiff, Hershman gave to Leiberman the amount specified therein. Subsequently, Hershman cashed for Leiberman twelve other checks, drawn in the same way, all of which were endorsed by the latter; these were endorsed and deposited by Hershman in his account with the trust company, were endorsed by it, and defendant collected the amount thereof from plaintiff, through the Clearing House Association. In this way, eight of these checks were paid by plaintiff prior to January 31, 1918, and, on that date, were deducted in the settlement of Wapner & Rushansky's account without objection by the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP