First Nat. Bank of Willimantic v. Bevin

• Decision Date: 04 April 1900
• Citation: 45 A. 954,72 Conn. 666
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: FIRST NAT. BANK OF WILLIMANTIC v. BEVIN.

45 A. 954

72 Conn. 666

FIRST NAT. BANK OF WILLIMANTIC

v. BEVIN.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

April 4, 1900.

Appeal from superior court, Windham county; Alberto T. Roraback, Judge.

Action by the First National Bank of Willimantic, as indorsee, against Chauncey G. Bevln, the maker, to recover the amount of two notes. Judgment for plaintiff, and appeal by the defendant for alleged errors in the rulings of the court. Affirmed.

This case and the preceding one arose out of the same matter. They were tried together, as, in one aspect, they were but parts of the same case. There was only one finding. The part of the finding specially applicable to this case is as follows: The notes in question were transferred by said Risley to the bank as security of a loan, although it did not appear from the evidence by whom the notes in question were taken on the part of the bank, although Risley was cashier at the time. It did not appear that the bank had any knowledge of the representations made by Risley in obtaining said notes from the defendant, or of the facts relating to the issue of stock, unless the same in law can be inferred from the fact that Risley was its cashier. Neither did the defendant know that the notes were held by the bank until demand was made upon him by the receiver.

William C. Case and Daniel A. Markham, for appellant.

Charles E. Perkins and Solomon Lucas, for appellee.

ANDREWS, C. J. (after stating the facts). This action was brought to recover the amount of two notes given by Mr. Bevin, the defendant, to the Natchaug Silk Company, and by that company indorsed to the plaintiff. They are the same two notes mentioned in the preceding case as having been given by Mr. Bevin to that corporation in part payment for certain shares of its capital stock. The defense was that the said shares of stock were void; that the notes were, for that reason, without consideration; that Mr. Bevin was induced to give the notes by the fraud of Mr. Risley (all as is fully set forth in the finding and opinion in that ease); that the plaintiff took the notes under such circumstance that it was chargeable with knowledge of such want of consideration and fraud, and that, therefore, it could not recover. The fraud of Mr. Risley, if there was any, cannot be imputed to the bank from the fact that he was its cashier. Bank v. Payne, 25 Conn. 444; Butler v. Toy Co., 46 Conn. 136; Foundry v. Dart, 26 Conn. 382. It being decided in the former case that the said...