Lorick v. Palmetto Bank & Trust Co
| Citation | 74 S.C. 185,54 S.E. 206 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Decision Date | 14 April 1906 |
| Parties | LORICK. v. PALMETTO BANK & TRUST CO. |
Banks and Banking — Refusal to Pay Check—Rights of Depositor.
Where a bank refuses to pay the check of a depositor having funds to his credit, on the ground that the funds were deposited in the savings department of the bank, which was a mistake, the depositor is entitled to a verdict for temperate damages.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 6, Cent. Dig. Banks and Banking, § 380.]
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Richland County; Purdy, Judge.
Action by Blanche O. Lorick against the Palmetto Bank & Trust Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
Frank G. Tompkins, for appellant.
Weston & Aycock, for respondent
This action was commenced on the 15th day of September, 1903. It came on for trial before Judge Purdy and a jury, on the 28th of November, 1904. Its object was the recovery of $1,000 damages. After hearing the testimony and argument of counsel and the, circuit judge's charge, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant. After judgment an appeal was taken to this court.
The admitted facts are that the plaintiff on the 14th of March, 1903, deposited with the defendant bank the sum of $313.75, to be paid out on the check of the plaintiff during banking hours of the defendant On the 2d day of July, 1903, she issued to one H. R. Harris or bearer a check on the defendant bank for the sum of $13.75; the defendant informed the holder of the check that the plaintiff had funds in its bank to her credit sufficient to pay said check, but that the same were in the savings department of said bank, the rules of which required that all checks presented for payment should be accompanied by the bank's passbook, and thereupon the holder of the check left the bank. Then on Monday succeeding the day on which the said check was first presented the check was again presented for payment, which was again declined for the reason before given. It was found that the bank made a mistake, for the funds of the plaintiff were not deposited in the savings department of the bank, but were really subject to the check of the plaintiff, and that this fact was discovered by the bank when the plaintiff presented her book of deposit; that then the bank offered to pay the check, but plaintiff declined to receive the money. On the afternoon of that day, Monday, the bank, through one of its officials, tendered the money to the attorney of the plaintiff, which was decided, with information that suit would be brought The defendant admitted that its books showed that plaintiff had on deposit subject to her credit the sum of $213.75, and that said books of the bank were easily accessible by its teller and assistant teller. Regret was expressed by its officers for their mistake. When the judge charged the jury "that if the jury believed that there was no positive and unqualified refusal to pay, they should find for the defendant"—he was in error in this case, for the action of the bank on presentation of the check was tantamount to a refusal to pay. There was no mistake on the part of the plaintiff. The error was committed by the defendant. The judge should have charged that the jury should have found a verdict for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duncan v. Record Pub. Co
...presumed to result "by inference of law" and "are not required to be proved by evidence" (37 C. J. 91, § 516; see Lorick v. Bank, 74 S. C. 185, 54 S. E. 206, 7 Ann. Cas. 818), it is apparent that the words "substantial damages" were here used by the circuit judge, as they were used in Wilso......
-
Duncan v. Record Pub. Co.
...the commission of a crime, the court could properly charge that he would be entitled to recover "substantial" damages. In the case of Lorick v. Bank, supra, in a concurring opinion, Justice Woods said: "The liability of a bank to its depositor for substantial damages, temperate in amount, f......
-
Macrum v. Security Trust & Savings Co.
... ... was manager of a plumbing and heating company, which was a ... depositor in defendant's bank. He, as such manager, and ... with authority, issued a check of the company on such bank ... 40; McFall v. First Nat ... Bank, 138 Ark. 370, 211 S.W. 919 4 A. L. R. 940; ... Lorick v. Palmetto Bank & Trust Co., 74 S.C. 185, 54 ... S.E. 206, 7 Ann. Cas. 818; Svendsen v. State ... ...
-
St. Charles Mercantile Co. v. Armour & Co.
... ... The check was delivered to ... Moore. It is in the usual form of a bank check. It appears ... from a sight of the instrument that it was ... Wilson v. Palmetto Nation Bank, 113 S.C. 508, 101 ... S.E. 841, 843 ... Lorick v. Palmetto ... Bank & Trust Company, 74 S.C. 185, 54 S.E. 206, 7 Ann ... ...