Pennsylvania Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. North Penn Bank
| Decision Date | 10 July 1918 |
| Docket Number | 248-1917 |
| Citation | 70 Pa.Super. 34 |
| Parties | Pennsylvania Mutual Life Insurance Company v. North Penn Bank, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Argued October 16, 1917
Appeal by defendant, from judgment of C.P. No. 3, Philadelphia Co.-1916, No. 4977, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Pennsylvania Mutual Life Insurance Company v. North Penn Bank.
Assumpsit against a bank for the alleged wrongful payment of a check. Before Davis, J.
The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.
Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $ 531.60. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was refusal of judgment for defendant n. o. v.
Frank A. Chalmers, with him J. Hector McNeal and Simpson, Brown and Williams, for appellant. -- Story's authority to deliver the check necessarily included the authority to select and identify the payee: Adams Express Co. v Schlessinger, 75 Pa. 246; Brooke v. N.Y., Lake Erie & Western R. R. Co., 108 Pa. 529; Independent B. & L. Assn. v. Real Est. Trust Co., 156 Pa. 181; DeTurck v. Matz, 180 Pa. 347; McCullough v Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 2 Pa.Super. 233.
The fraud committed by Story against the defendant bank was not the ordinary risk which the bank assumes in its implied contract with its depositor: Iron City Nat. Bank v. Fort Pitt Nat. Bank, 159 Pa. 46; Land Title & Trust Co v. N.W. Nat. Bank, 196 Pa. 230; Snyder v. Corn Exchange Nat. Bank, 221 Pa. 599; Marcus v. People's Nat. Bank, 57 Pa.Super. 345; Second Nat. Bank of Pittsburgh v. Guarantee T. & S. Dep. Co., 206 Pa. 616.
Joseph Gilfillan, of Graham & Gilfillan, with him Richard T. McSorley and William J. Brady, for appellee, cited: Robb v. Penna. Co., Etc., 3 Pa.Super. 259; McNeely Co. v. Bank of North America, 221 Pa. 588; Girard Trust Co. v. Boyd, 45 Pa.Super. 285; Second National Bank of Pittsburgh v. Guarantee Trust & Safe Dep. Co., 206 Pa. 616.
Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Head, Kephart, Trexler and Williams, JJ.
The plaintiff company was a depositor in the defendant bank and, on February 5, 1916, drew a check upon the bank payable to the order of Fannie Goetz, the beneficiary in a policy upon the life of Leo M. Goetz. The check was drawn after the plaintiff company had received proofs of death which had been forwarded by its local superintendent at Erie, W. D. Story, and was sent to Story to be delivered to Mrs. Goetz, the beneficiary named in the policy. The check was presented to the Security Savings & Trust Company, of Erie, by a woman who was accompanied by Story and by him identified as the payee, and the woman endorsed the name of Fannie Goetz upon the check and received from the trust company the amount thereof. The Security Trust Company then sent the check to its correspondent at Philadelphia and it was paid by the defendant bank, which charged the amount to the account of the plaintiff. It was subsequently discovered that Leo M. Goetz, the assured, was still alive and that the endorsement of Fannie Goetz was forged. The plaintiff thereupon promptly notified the defendant bank and requested the bank to credit its account with the amount of the check, or cancel the charge of said amount which had been made when the check was paid, which the defendant refused to do. The plaintiff thereupon brought this action and recovered a judgment in the court below, from which the defendant appeals.
The verdict of the jury conclusively establishes the fact that the endorsement of Fannie Goetz, the payee of the check, was forged. There can be no question, under the evidence, that when the trust company at Erie paid the amount of the check to the woman who forged the name of the payee, it did so upon the representation of Story that the woman was Fannie Goetz and Story individually endorsed the check after the signature of the payee had been forged. The trust company relied wholly upon the representation of Story and the legal principles here applicable are precisely the same as if Story had himself forged the endorsement of the payee, added his own endorsement and thus procured the money from the trust company, without taking any woman to the bank with him. Fannie Goetz was not a fictitious person, she was a person to whom this plaintiff had contracted to pay money upon the happening of a certain contingency, and the plaintiff company believing that that contingency had happened sent the check payable to her order to its agent for delivery to her. Story was not authorized to draw the money on the check and pay it to her. Story was the agent of the company for the purpose of soliciting insurance and collecting premiums and paying the same over to the company. When a death occurred...
To continue reading
Request your trial