143 N.Y. 559, Bank of New York Nat. Banking Ass'n v. American Dock & Trust Co.

Citation:143 N.Y. 559
Case Date:November 27, 1894
Court:New York Court of Appeals

Page 559

143 N.Y. 559




New York Court of Appeal

November 27, 1894

Argued October 12, 1894.

Page 560


John B. Whiting for appellant. It was error to exclude the conversation between Mr. Stone and the officers of the bank at the time the warehouse receipt was delivered to the bank and the money advanced by it. (Whart. on Ev. §§ 259, 1176; Greenl. on Ev. § 113; M. Bank v. Griswold, 72 N.Y. 472; Cowing v. Altman, 71 id. 435; Wilson v. M. R. Co., 120 id. 145; H. N. Bank v. A.D. & T. Co.) It was error to dismiss the complaint at the close of the plaintiff's case. (Griswold v. Haven, 25 N.Y. 599; N.Y. & N. H. R. R. Co. v. Schuyler, 34 id. 30; Bruff v. Mali, 36 id. 200; Bank of Batavia v. E. R. R. Co., 106 id. 195; F. A. Bank v. F. S. S. R. R. Co., 137 id. 237; Titus v. G. W. T. Co., 61 id. 237; Shaw v. P. P. G. M. Co., L. R. [ 13 Q. B.] 103; Tome v. P. B. R. R. Co., 39 Md. 85; Magee v. Badger, 34 N.Y. 247; Belmont v. Hodge, 35 id. 65; Chapman v. Rose, 56 id. 137; D. C. Ins. Co. v. Hachfield, 73 id. 226.) The form of action is proper, as a corporation is liable in an action for deceit for the false representations of its officers and agents. (F. S. Inst. v. N. Bank, 80 N.Y. 162; Barwick v. E. J. S. Bank, L. R. [ 2 Ex.] 259.)

Thaddeus D. Kenneson for respondent. Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was properly granted. (Bank

Page 561

of Batavia v. N.Y. L. E. & W. R. R. Co., 106 N.Y. 195; F. & M. Bank v. B. & D. Bank, 16 id. 125; Wilson v. M. E. R. Co., 120 id. 145; Pollard v. Vinton, 105 U.S. 7; M. L. Ins. Co. v. F. S. S. & G. S. F. Co., 139 N.Y. 146; W. S. L. S. Bank v. S. C. Bank, 95 U.S. 557; N. P. Bank v. G. A. M. W. & S. Co., 116 N.Y. ; Voltz v. Blackman, 64 id. 440; Fielden v. Lahens, 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 111; W. S. L. S. Bank v. Parmalee, 95 U.S. 557; Gerard v. McCormick, 130 N.Y. 261; Shaw v. M. N. Bank, 101 U.S. 557; C. Bank v. McCrea, 106 Ill. 281; Carter v. B. L. Ins. Co., 110 N.Y. 115.) Any statements or representations made by Stone at the time he procured this loan from the bank to himself individually must be considered as made by him as an individual and for his own individual purpose, and not by him as an officer of the defendant for any purpose pertaining to the business of the defendant. (M. L. Ins. Co. v. F. S. S. & G. S. F. R. R. Co., 139 N.Y. 146; Farrington v. S. B. R. R. Co., 158 Mass. 406.)


The defendant herein was authorized by its charter to receive goods for storage and issue warehouse receipts, which were made negotiable and transferable by indorsement and delivery, and any holder thereof was to be taken to be the owner or pledgee of the goods mentioned in the receipt for any advance or credits on the same, subject, however, to charges for storage. When goods were received it became necessary for some one to sign and deliver the warehouse receipt, and that duty was provided for in a by-law or resolution of the company, which was introduced in evidence. It provided that after the date of the directors' meeting at which it was adopted (Aug. 1, 1890), the warehouse receipts, until otherwise directed, should be signed by either the president or treasurer. At the time of the transaction in question M. W. Stone was president of the company and F. H. Pouch was treasurer. In Nov., 1890, Mr. Stone went to the plaintiff and sought and obtained a personal loan, for which he gave

Page 562

his own note, and as collateral security for its payment he gave a warehouse receipt purporting to be issued by the defendant, the material portion of...

To continue reading