Chambers v. Union National Bank

Decision Date02 April 1875
Citation78 Pa. 205
PartiesChambers <I>et al. versus</I> Union National Bank.
CourtPennsylvania Supreme Court

Before AGNEW, C. J., SHARSWOOD, MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON and WOODWARD, JJ.

Error to the District Court of Philadelphia, No. 126: Of July Term 1873.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

E. S. Miller, for plaintiffs in error.—Can the action, under its circumstances, be maintained under the Act of 1849? In the case of Levy v. Bank of the United States, 1 Binn. 27, it was held, that where a bank pays a forged check, it cannot recover it back, because it is presumed to know the handwriting of the drawer. The Act of 1849 was passed to remedy the effect of this decision, but does not apply when the parties are equally innocent: Bayard v. Shunk, 1 W. & S. 92; or where there is negligence on the part of a bank, &c., in paying: Roth v. Crissy, 6 Casey 145; Rick v. Kelly, Id. 527; Corn Exchange Nat. Bank v. Nat. Bank of the Republic, postea, p. 233. An officer of the bank said the draft was good; this was evidence on which to base an estoppel: Elliott v. Callan, 1 Penna. R. 24; McMullin v. Wenner, 16 S. & R. 18. The delay in informing defendants of the forgery was too great: Thomas v. Todd, 3 Hill 341; Gloucester Bank v. Salem Bank, 17 Mass. R. 33.

C. Gilpin, for defendant in error, cited Tradesmen's Bank v. Third National Bank, 16 P. F. Smith 435.

Judgment was entered in the Supreme Court, April 2d, 1875, PER CURIAM.

We discover no error in this case. The draft of the First National Bank of Warsaw, Indiana, on the Union National Bank of Philadelphia, never having reached the hands of C. J. Jordan, the payee, it is evident the time lost before the discovery of the forgery of his signature was owing to no fault of the Union National Bank. Notice was given by it to Chambers & Cattell as soon as a knowledge of the fact came to the officers of the bank. In regard to the endorsement of Jordan, it is to be noticed it was a signature in the line of the title of Chambers & Cattell. The presumption is that the drawee of a bill is acquainted with the signature of the drawer, his own correspondent, and, therefore, a voluntary payment to a bonâ fide holder for value cannot be recovered back. So the law was before the Act of 5th April 1849, 16 P. F. Smith 435. But surely the drawee is not to be supposed to know all the endorsements on the bill down to that of him who presents it for payment....

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT