Corn Exchange Nat. Bank v. Nat. Bank of the Republic

• Decision Date: 10 May 1875
• Citation: 78 Pa. 233
• Parties: Corn Exchange National Bank <I>versus</I> National Bank of the Republic.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

78 Pa. 233

Corn Exchange National Bank versus National Bank of the Republic.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

April 1, 1875.

May 10, 1875.

April 1st 1875.

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

Error to the District Court of Philadelphia: Of July Term 1873, No. 145.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

S. Dickson (with whom was J. C. Bullitt), for plaintiff in error, referred to and applied the Act of 1849: Tradesmen's Bank v. Third National Bank, 16 P. F. Smith 435. Money paid under mistake of fact may be recovered back notwithstanding negligence, delay in giving notice or change of position of the receiver: Kelly v. Solari, 9 M. & W. 54; Townsend v. Crowdy, 8 C. B. N. S. 98. The facts in this case furnished no evidence of negligence for the jury: Howard Express Co. v. Wile, 14 P. F. Smith 201. It was for the court to say whether the delay in giving notice was unreasonable: Leaming v. Wise, 23 P. F. Smith 173.

C. S. Pancoast, for defendant in error.—The Act of 1849 was merely to correct the hardship from the particular point decided in Levy v. United States Bank, 1 Binn. 37, but gave no higher quality than any other right to recover; such right would be affected by general and well settled principles of law: Roth v. Crissy, 6 Casey 145. What is reasonable for performance or rescission, where the contract is silent, may be collected from facts proved by parol: Ellis v. Thompson, 3 M. & W. 445; Cocker v. Henk, 3 Sumner 530.

Mr. Justice PAXSON delivered the opinion of the court, May 10th 1875.

An effort has been made to distinguish this case from that of the Tradesmen's Bank v. Third National Bank, 16 P. F. Smith 435, but we think without success. The remark of the late Chief Justice Read in the concluding paragraph of his opinion in that case has no application to the present one. There, it was alleged that the defendants were not liable because they were merely agents for another bank. The court said if the fact were so it made no difference, as the money had not been paid over by the bank to its principal. There is no allegation here that the defendants are the agents of another bank. They became the owners of the forged check; passed it upon the plaintiffs, and received value therefor. Whether the defendants gave cash or a credit for the check when they received it, does not concern the plaintiffs. Their right to recover back the money they paid does not depend upon the right or the ability of the defendants to recover from the person who forged the check, and passed it upon them. The Act of 1849 was not merely declaratory of the law as it then stood. It gives a clear right to the holder of forged paper to recover the money paid by him to a previous holder. Upon this right the act imposes no qualification.

It was contended, however, upon the trial in the court below, that the plaintiffs were not protected by the Act of 1849, because they had been guilty of negligence. It is not necessary for us to express an opinion as to how far negligence is a defence under this act, for the reason that there was not sufficient evidence upon...