Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank v. Boraef

• Decision Date: 24 January 1829
• Citation: 1 Rawle 152
• Parties: The FARMERS and MECHANICS' BANK v. BORAEF.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

1 Rawle 152

The FARMERS and MECHANICS' BANK v. BORAEF.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

January 24, 1829

IN ERROR.

An entry made by a clerk in a book of a bank, of a deposit made by a customer, immediately before an entry made by him of the same deposit in the customer's bank book, and supported by the oath of the clerk, is evidence to go to the jury together with the customer's book and the testimony of the clerk.

THE defendant in error, Henry Boraef, brought this action of assumpsit against the Farmers and Mechanics' Bank, to recover the sum of eight hundred dollars, alleged to have been deposited by him with the bank.

On the trial, the plaintiff gave in evidence his bank book containing an entry made by Henry Meyers, a clerk of the bank, of a deposit of eight hundred dollars, by the plaintiff, on the 7th of October, 1825. He also produced a witness, who swore to having made such a deposit on that day.

The defendants then offered to give in evidence an entry in a book of the bank, of the deposit made by the plaintiff on the 7th of October, 1825, supported by the oath of Henry Meyers, the clerk who made it; the said entry having been made by the said clerk at the time of the deposit, and immediately before the entry made by him in the plaintiff's bank book; both entries having reference to the same deposit. The court admitted the witness, for the purpose of proving the deposit to have been made, as it appeared in the book of the bank, but rejected the book itself. The witness, however, knowing nothing but from the entry in the book, and being unable to refresh his recollection by an inspection of it, the counsel for the defendants below excepted to the opinion of the court.

Purdon, for the plaintiffs in error.

The entry in the book of the bank, supported by the oath of the clerk who made it, ought to have been admitted in evidence though the clerk had no recollection except what he derived from the entry. It was made in the book of original entries, in the usual course of dealing between the parties, authorized by law, and was offered after the plaintiff's book had been given in evidence. The oath of a party making an entry at the time of the transaction, is always received in evidence in Pennsylvania. To exclude such evidence in a case like this, would be almost to hazard the existence of banks. The clerks, amidst the hurry of extensive business, cannot possibly have any recollection of particular deposits, and the exclusion of the books would leave them altogether without evidence. The books are the only records of the transactions of banks. The apprehension that frauds may possibly be committed by clerks, is not a sufficient reason against evidence of this sort. The books of tradesmen are liable to an equal, and even a greater objection, because the books of banks check each other so completely, that it is impossible to commit a fraud, unless, when the clerk makes a false entry, he puts the balance of the money into his pocket, which is scarcely practicable. There are many authorities in favour of the admission of such evidence as the court below rejected. Patton's Administrators v. Ash, 7 Serg. & Rawle, 124. 2 Cowen, 765. Union Bank v. Natt, 3 Pick. 96. Philadelphia Bank v. Officer, 12 Serg. & Rawle, 49. Ridgway v. Farmers' Bank of Bucks County, 12 Serg. & Rawle, 256. The doctrine in relation to the admission of books in evidence has latterly been extended much beyond its original limits, by following out the principle on which tradesmen's books are received. Speer v. Saunders, 1 Bay, 119. Frazier v. Drayton, 2 Nott & M'Cord, 471. Richards v. Howard, Id. 474. Ingraham v. Bockius, 9 Serg. & Rawle, 287. Faxson v. Hollis, 13 Mass. 427. Owens v. Speed, 5 Wheat. 433.

Kittera, for the defendant in error.

The evidence of the deposit claimed by the plaintiff below, was an entry in his bank book, made by the clerk of the bank, and fortified by the oath of the person who made the deposit. The defendants then offered a memorandum book, without stating by what it was to...