First Nat. Bank of Roselle v. Dorvall

• Decision Date: 19 June 1916
• Citation: 98 A. 476
• Parties: FIRST NAT. BANK OF ROSELLE v. DORVALL.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

98 A. 476

FIRST NAT. BANK OF ROSELLE

v. DORVALL.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

June 19, 1916.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Action by the First National Bank of Roselle against John F. Dorvall. From a judgment of the Supreme Court, affirming a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Nathan R. Leavitt, of Elizabeth, for appellant. David S. Feinswog, of Elizabeth, for appellee.

BERGEN, J. The plaintiff brought his action in the district court of the city of Elizabeth to recover the principal and interest of a promissory note made by the defendant to his own order for $450 and interest, payable at the banking house of the plaintiff. The defendant indorsed the note which was delivered to the plaintiff. The consideration for this note was a check drawn by the cashier. of the plaintiff against the funds of the plaintiff to the order of the defendant which the latter indorsed to the sheriff of the county of Union on account of a bid for the property of one L. A. Deitz at a foreclosure sale thereof. The sale was not consummated and the sheriff was required to again offer it for sale, and on the resale the property did not realize enough to pay the indebtedness, and the $450 paid at the first sale was forfeited.

The defense set up at the trial was, that the cashier of the plaintiff, acting on its behalf, induced the defendant to sign the note as an accommodation for the bank upon a promise that defendant would never be asked to pay it, that the cashier represented to defendant that the bank desired to buy the property of Deitz in order to save it from loss on obligations of Deitz held by it, and as the bank did not wish to take the title in its name, the defendant was requested to act for the bank and hold the title for it, and that the note was given as a mere memorandum of the amount which the bank had advanced towards the bid, and that defendant was to hold the property until the bank could dispose of it, or until the note was paid. There was evidence tending to show that the making of the note and its indorsement to the bank was for the accommodation of Deitz and not for the bank. The district court determined that the note was made for the accommodation of Deitz and not, as the defendant claims, for the bank. There is evidence to sustain this finding, and therefore the defense set up by the defendant, if available, depended upon a question of fact, and the trial court having found adversely to the...