First Nat. Bank of Allentown v. Williams
| Decision Date | 20 March 1882 |
| Citation | 100 Pa. 123 |
| Parties | First National Bank of Allentown <I>versus</I> Williams. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before SHARSWOOD, C. J., MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON, TRUNKEY, STERRETT and GREEN, JJ.
ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh county: Of January Term 1882, No. 345.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Edward Harvey, for the plaintiff in error.
Evan Holben (with him D. D. Roper), for the defendant in error.—There was ample evidence to warrant the submission to the jury of the question whether the contract was with the bank. The transaction was with the president of the bank, in the banking house, and when this officer said, "we can give you a certificate," &c., the plaintiff understood he was speaking for the bank on a matter within the scope of his authority. That the president had the power to bind the bank is ruled in Steckel v. Bank, 12 Norris 376. Even if the receipt of money for the bank was not within the scope of his agency, a corporation cannot in such case set up the fraud of its own officers in answer to a demand for payment: Ziegler v. Bank, 12 Norris 393; Resh v. Bank, 9 W. N. C. 21.
The learned judge who tried this cause below was evidently of the impression that it came within the ruling of Steckel v. Bank, 12 Norris 376, and Ziegler v. The Bank, Ibid. 393. There is, however, a marked distinction between the cases. In those cited there was a positive assertion on the part of the bank officers that the certificates in question were the certificates of the bank, and this assertion was made under circumstances which rendered it at least probable the parties were misled by it. We therefore held there was a question of fraud which ought to have been submitted to the jury.
In the case in hand it is evident from the testimony of the plaintiff below that he knew he was getting the certificate of Blumer and Co. and not of the bank. In the first place he was distinctly told the bank would not pay interest, but that he could have a certificate bearing six per cent. interest. When it was handed him he looked at it and said, to which the president of the bank replied, "It is all the same thing; we own the bank ourselves, and you will get your money in the First National Bank at any time you want it." It further appeared that Mr. Blumer showed him the bank...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Salt Lake City
... ... to sustain the action. ( Low v. Williams, 75 Me. 113; ... Foley v. Mayor, 1 A.D. 586; Lincoln ... on the north bank of the stream, and also on the south bank, ... for some ... negligence ... Referring ... to the first reason stated, the record discloses that the ... plaintiff ... ...
-
Hull v. Guaranty State Bank
...necessary that the transaction be with the bank and not with the officer as an individual." See, also, First National Bank of Allentown v. Williams, 100 Pa. 123, 45 Am. Rep. 365. No useful purpose would be served by any further discussion, since it is clear that the trial court's second fin......