Chase v. Waterbury Sav. Bank

• Decision Date: 11 November 1904
• Citation: 59 A. 37,77 Conn. 295
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: CHASE v. WATERBURY SAV. BANK.

59 A. 37

77 Conn. 295

CHASE

v. WATERBURY SAV. BANK.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Nov. 11, 1904.

Appeal from Superior Court, Litchfield County; Alberto T. Roraback, Judge.

Action by Mary A. Chase against the Waterbury Savings Bank to recover savings deposits paid by the bank on forged orders. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Nathaniel R. Bronson, for appellant.

Frank W. Etheridge, for appellee.

HALL, J. From April 1, 1887, to September 26, 1900, the plaintiff made in person 25 deposits in the defendant's savings bank, which, with dividends added at the rate declared by the bank, amounted at the time of the trial, in March, 1904, to $3,230. The plaintiff has neither herself withdrawn any part of said sum, nor has she given any order for any payment to others. Upon four occasions between December 31, 1901, and March 3, 1902, the plaintiff's daughter Mrs. Keith, who, with her husband, lived with the plaintiff, obtained money from the bank, amounting in all to $500, by presenting the plaintiff's bankbook, of which she had fraudulently obtained the possession, and by presenting with the bankbook forged orders purporting to have been signed by the plaintiff directing payment to be made to Mrs. Keith of the sums named in the orders. Early in April, 1902, Mrs. Keith confessed to her mother that she had drawn money upon the bankbook, but claimed that she could obtain no more without an order from the plaintiff, and offered to write to the bank and secure a reply which would satisfy the plaintiff, and a few days later read to her mother what purported to be a letter from the bank to the effect that no further money could be drawn on the plaintiff's account without an order from the plaintiff, and that it would be all right Thereafter the plaintiff kept her bankbook locked up in a more secure place, but did not then notify the bank that her daughter had thus wrongfully obtained possession of the bankbook and drawn the money. On the 16th of April, 1902, Mrs. Keith presented at the bank to Mr. Merriman, the defendant's bookkeeper, a forged letter of that date, purporting to have been signed by the plaintiff, addressed to the treasurer of the bank, representing that the plaintiff had accidentally destroyed her bankbook, and requesting that a new one be issued in its place, and further stating that the plaintiff was an invalid, and had sent her daughter Mrs. Keith to get the new book, and had inclosed an order for money. Mr. Merriman informed Mrs. Keith that a new book could not be issued until a bond bad been given to the bank, and prepared and gave to Mrs. Keith a form of a bond, with instructions to have it executed by the plaintiff and some responsible person as surety. On the following day Mrs. Keith presented the bond to Mr. Merriman at the bank, with the plaintiff's name as principal, and the name of another person as surety signed thereto. Both signatures were forgeries. In the absence of the treasurer of the bank, and without Inquiring as to the responsibility or existence of the person whose name appeared as surety on the bond, and without submitting the matter to the "board of direction," or to "a committee appointed for that purpose," Mr. Merriman issued and delivered to Mrs. Keith a new book, in the name of the plaintiff, with the balance due upon the first book transferred thereto, and at the same time paid to Mrs. Keith $300 upon a forged order presented by her, dated April 16, 1902, purporting to have been signed by the plaintiff, and directing said sum to be paid to Mrs. Keith upon the amount due upon the first book. Six payments, amounting to $1,700, were made by the bank to Mrs. Keith upon presentation of said second book with forged orders of the plaintiff; the last payment having been made on the 27th of October, 1902. The plaintiff had no knowledge of the existence of said second book, nor of the payment of any of the money drawn by her daughter thereon, until informed of these facts by the bank on the 1st of November, 1902, when she immediately obtained from her daughter the second book, and $20 of the money which she had fraudulently drawn. Said second book was issued, and all the payments upon both bank books were made, by the bank in good faith, and upon the belief that the letter and orders purporting to have been signed by the plaintiff were genuine; and the plaintiff gave no notice to the defendant that Mrs. Keith had fraudulently obtained possession of the first book, and that said letter and orders were forgeries, until November 1, 1902.

The following statement was printed in the plaintiff's bankbook:

"Take Care of This Book. If you lose it of mislay it give immediate notice to the Bank, as if it gets into improper hands you may be defrauded."

Among the by-laws printed in plaintiff's book were these:

"Art. 13. Dividends and money withdrawn shall be paid only to the depositor, or to the depositor's order, or legal representative; but neither the principal nor interest of any deposit shall be paid to any person, unless the depositor's book of entries made by an officer of the corporation or of the direction shall be presented that such payments may be entered therein, or unless the depositor shall prove to the satisfaction of the board of direction, or a committee appointed for that purpose, that such book has been lost or destroyed, in which case the depositor or his legal representative shall lodge with the treasurer a written discharge."

"Art. 15. This bank will not be responsible to any depositor, or to his heirs or assigns, for any fraud that may be practiced upon any of the officers of this institution by forged signatures, or by presenting a depositor's book, and drawing money without the knowledge or consent of the owner. And all entries of money paid, made in the depositor's book by an officer of the Institution, shall be deemed good and valid evidence of money paid, and shall exonerate this bank from any liability on account of any fraud practiced in drawing the money of any depositor."

The above facts appear to have been proved at the trial beyond controversy.

Whether the officers of the bank exercised reasonable care in issuing the second book, and in making the payments to Mrs. Keith upon the first and second book upon the forged orders, and whether the plaintiff was negligent in failing to keep her first bankbook in a safe place, and in not notifying the bank that her daughter had fraudulently drawn money on the first book when she learned of it, in April, 1902, were among the disputed questions of fact at the trial.

The only properly assigned reasons of appeal are the denial of the defendant's motion for a new trial upon the ground that the verdict was against the evidence, and the failure of the trial judge to charge the jury in accordance with the specific requests set forth in the appeal. The last reason of appeal, that "the court erred in charging the jury as certified to in the printed record," is not a proper assignment of error. It fails to point out the particular errors complained of in a charge covering 12 pages of the printed record, and therefore raises no question which this court is bound to review. Section 802, Gen. St 1902; Hayden v. Fair Haven & W. R. Co., 76 Conn. 355-365, 56 Atl. 613; Simmonds v. Holmes, 61 Conn. 1-9, 23 Atl. 702, 15 L. R. A. 253.

The substance of the several requests contained in the appeal may be fairly stated as these four requests to charge: First, that article 15 of the by-laws was sufficient authority to the bank for the payments made to Mrs. Keith; second, that her failure to notify the bank that Mrs. Keith had fraudulently drawn money on her deposit book when she first learned of that fact prevented the plaintiff from recovering the sums paid by the bank to Mrs. Keith; third, that, if...