Judge v. West Philadelphia Title & Trust Co.
Decision Date | 19 November 1917 |
Docket Number | 211-1916 |
Citation | 68 Pa.Super. 310 |
Parties | Judge v. West Philadelphia Title & Trust Co., Appellant |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Argued November 3, 1916 [Syllabus Matter]
Appeal by defendant, from judgment of C.P. No. 4, Philadelphia Co.-1913, No. 2896, on verdict for plaintiff in case of John P. Judge v. West Philadelphia Title and Trust Company.
Assumpsit to recover the amount of two checks alleged to have been wrongfully charged to the plaintiff's account as a depositor. Before Carr, J.
At the trial it appeared that the plaintiff was a depositor in the defendant's bank, which also had a deposit account of Walter H. Hays, Secretary. Upon September 21, 1912, Zelley who was not known to the defendant, presented for payment two checks purporting to have been drawn by Hays, Secretary, one for $ 300, to the order of Biesantz and endorsed by him, and the other for $ 150 to the order of Sullivan and endorsed by him. Zelley had also endorsed them.
W. H Hoot, the paying teller of the defendant company, testified as follows, as to what occurred when the checks were presented:
The plaintiff claimed that he endorsed the check merely for the purpose of identifying Zelley. He testified to the transaction as follows:
The checks turned out to be forgeries, and of this fact Judge was notified.
The court gave binding instructions for plaintiff.
Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $ 524.50. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned was in giving binding instructions for plaintiff.
Alex. Simpson, of Simpson, Brown & Williams, for appellant, cited: Fulweiler v. Hughes, 17 Pa. 440; Gaul v. Willis, 26 Pa. 259; Levy v. Bank of U.S. 1 Binn 27; Commercial Nat. Bank v. Henninger, 105 Pa. 496; Union Nat. Bank v. Franklin Nat. Bank, 249 Pa. 375; Young's Est., 234 Pa. 287; Wisner v. First Nat. Bank of Gallitzin, 220 Pa. 21.
William A. Carr, with him John M. Hill, W. Horace Hepburn and Sidney L. Krauss, for appellee, cited: Iron City Nat. Bank v. Fort Pitt Nat. Bank, 159 Pa. 46; Tradesmen's Nat. Bank v. Third Nat. Bank, 66 Pa. 435; Union Nat. Bank v. Franklin Nat. Bank, 249 Pa. 375.
Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Head, Trexler and Williams, JJ.
John P. Judge, the plaintiff, was a depositor in the defendant's bank. Upon September 21, 1912, Zelley, who was not known to the defendant's teller, presented for payment two checks, purporting to have been drawn by Hays, Secretary, one for $ 300, to the order of Biesantz, and the other for $ 150, to the order of Sullivan, both endorsed by the payees and Zelley. The teller refused to cash the checks unless they were endorsed by a depositor of the bank and at Zelley's request, Judge endorsed both checks. The endorsements were unrestricted. The bank discovered that the checks had been forged, and promptly notified the plaintiff, Judge, and charged the amount of the checks against his account. The present suit is brought by Judge to recover from the bank the amount so charged to his account. The court below gave binding instructions for the plaintiff. In the opinion filed, it rested its conclusion upon the interpretation of the tenth section of the Act of April 5, 1849, P. L. 426. That section reads as follows: " That whenever any value or amount shall be received as a consideration in the sale, assignment, transfer or negotiation, or in payment of any bill of exchange, draft, check, order, promissory note or other instrument, negotiable within this Commonwealth by the holder thereof, from the endorsee or endorsees, or payer or payers of the same, and the signature or signatures of any person or persons, represented to be parties thereto, whether as drawer, acceptor or endorser, shall have been forged thereon, and such value or amount by reason thereof erroneously given or paid such endorsee or endorsees, as well as such payer or payers respectively, -- shall be legally entitled to recover back from the person or persons previously holding or negotiating the same, the value or amount so as aforesaid given or paid by such endorsee or endorsees or payer or payers respectively, -- to such person or persons, together with lawful interest thereon from the time that demand shall have been made for repayment of the same."
Inasmuch as the money was paid to Zelley and not to Judge, the last endorser, the court held that no recovery could be had under the section above quoted; that in order to recover the party from whom the money is sought must have been the actual recipient of it; that the physical act involved in the paying of the money determined the application of the section. We think this is too narrow a construction of this act. The act declares that anyone paying money on a forged instrument may recover it back from the person or persons previously holding or negotiating the same. Any person holding or negotiating the paper is liable. The thing recoverable is the amount paid to such person or persons. The last part of the section has reference to the money paid, but it does not, we think, limit the liability of the persons previously...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Market St. Title & Trust Co. v. Chelten Trust Co.
...caused the loss: Phila. Nat. Bank v. Bank, 25 F.2d 995. Appellee can recover on the warranty of appellant's endorsement: Judge v. T. & T. Co., 68 Pa.Super. 310. is liable to appellee for money paid on a forged endorsement. There was no question of fact to go to the jury. Before MOSCHZISKER,......
-
Mitchell v. Minnig
... ... first party was unable to give a title satisfactory to Brooks ... & English, attorneys, the hand ... If the defendant were left ... at liberty to judge for himself when he was satisfied, it ... would totally ... Lancaster ... County, 23 Pa. 291; McHugh v. Philadelphia, 62 ... Pa.Super. 550; Citizens Trust & Surety Co. v ... ...