Church v. Nat'l Newark & Essex Banking Co.

• Decision Date: 06 March 1922
• Citation: 116 A. 620
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
• Parties: CHURCH et al. v. NATIONAL NEWARK & ESSEX BANKING CO.

116 A. 620

CHURCH et al.

v. NATIONAL NEWARK & ESSEX BANKING CO.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

March 6, 1922.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Essex County.

Action by Alonzo Church and others against the National Newark & Essex Banking Company. Judgment of nonsuit, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Merritt Lane, of Jersey City, for appellants.

Pitney, Hardin & Skinner, of Newark, for appellee.

MINTURN, J. Upon the following state of facts, a judgment of nonsuit was directed at the circuit. Plaintiffs, a firm of eminent lawyers in the city of Newark, were depositing customers of the defendant company, in the same city.

Prior to November 1, 1919, a man bearing all the external evidences of a clergyman called at the plaintiffs' office and placed with them a claim for collection amounting to $4,300. In due time an apparently certified check drawn by the Keystone Construction Company of Philadelphia, upon the Philadelphia National Bank, payable to the order of the plaintiffs, for the sum of $4,300 was received through the mail. On November 1st this check was deposited by plaintiffs with the defendant company in due course of business to their account as "Attorneys," bearing this indorsement:

"Pay to the order of National Newark & Essex Banking Co., Newark, N. J., Church, Harrison & Roche, Attys. Acct."

At the same time some suggestion was made by the plaintiffs' agent depositing the check that it might be well to call up the Philadelphia bank in order to verify the genuineness of the check, but, for some reason not apparent upon the record, that course was not insisted upon or followed, and the check bearing the unqualified indorsement of the plaintiffs was passed through the clearing house, and returned a few days later to the defendant marked:

"Fraudulent check. Fraudulent certification."

Coincident with the depositing of this check in the defendant's bank, the plaintiffs without further investigation drew another check for $4,150 to the order of the conspicuous and successful actor in the case, John Larkin; this check represented the amount due to the payee, less the plaintiffs' fees for services in the collection of the claim.

The defendant, upon discovering the falsity of the deposited check, charged back the amount of the check against the plaintiffs' account, and this suit was thereafter instituted to recover the amount of the fraudulent check, with interest.

John Larkin lost no time in cashing his check, for, at the same time that the fraudulent check was deposited, he went to the bank with the plaintiffs' representative, and was there identified by him as the payee of the check, and then and there received the amount thereof.

John Larkin was apparently a clergyman. He wore, says the plaintiffs' witness, the apparel that "ministers generally wear," and his collar dated back in formula to the days of the Holy Roman Empire, because, says the same witness, "it was one that was not buttoned in the front." Another evidence of his divine calling was that he informed the plaintiffs' representative, who so informed the bank's representative, that immediate payment of the check was imperative, because the reverend payee was obliged to betake himself at once to the city of Rochester, where he was scheduled to deliver a sermon the next day.

Indeed, a perusal of the testimony would warrant one in confidently greeting this unctuous adventurer as the Psalmist saluted the anointed of Israel: "Tu es Sacerdos in Æternum secundum ordinem Melchisedesh." In such an exigency obviously...