Central Nat. Bank v. Copp

• Decision Date: 22 October 1903
• Citation: 68 N.E. 334,184 Mass. 328
• Parties: CENTRAL NAT. BANK v. COPP.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

184 Mass. 328

68 N.E. 334

CENTRAL NAT. BANK v. COPP.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

October 22, 1903

COUNSEL

Rockwood Hoar, for plaintiff.

Thayer & Rugg, for defendant.

OPINION

HAMMOND J.

The judge found that the name of the defendant on the notes declared on is forged, but that in January, 1899, she called at the bank and acknowledged in some form of words that the three notes then held by the bank 'were her notes,' and he found for the plaintiff upon them upon the ground of ratification. The defendant has argued that the finding of ratification is not warranted by the evidence, but we think otherwise. The president testified that after some conversation with the defendant as to 'a line of discount notes signed by her and her husband jointly,' in which he cautioned her as to the practice of signing notes for her husband, he took the three notes then held by the bank and handed them to the defendant and said, 'These three notes amount to $6,600. Are these all right?' and that she said, 'Yes, they are all right.' It is true that the defendant, in her testimony, denied that she said the notes were all right, and testified that the president said to her 'This is your signature, isn't it?' and that she replied, 'That is my name.' She further testified that the thought of forgery came to her mind, and she stopped. It might, perhaps, be argued that, under the circumstances, ratification could fairly be found upon the defendant's own testimony; but, whether that is so or not, there can be no doubt that, if the president's version of the interview is correct, the judge was amply justified in finding that, with full knowledge of the circumstances, she, for the purpose of shielding her husband ratified her signature. By reason of this ratification she became liable as though her name had been originally placed upon the notes by her authority, even although there was forgery, and the question whether there was a liability by estoppel became immaterial. Greenfield Bank v. Crafts, 4 Allen, 454; Wellington v. Jackson, 121 Mass. 157.

It is further argued that the three notes have been paid. There is no doubt that the bank went though all the forms usual in cases of payment. Upon maturity the notes were charged against the account kept by the husband in the bank, canceled by perforation, marked 'paid,' and, with checks and other things that were properly charged to his account, were handed to him with his bankbook whenever it was balanced. The defendant contends that in this way each note was paid as it matured, and that the taking by the bank of subsequent notes for the same respective amounts constituted in each case a new transaction. The judge, however, has found that 'when the notes became due they were surrendered to the husband upon the substitution of other similar forged notes,' and that 'the method of renewal...