Halsey v. Bank of New York & Trust Co.

CourtNew York Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtFINCH
Citation270 N.Y. 134,200 N.E. 671
Decision Date03 March 1936
PartiesHALSEY et al. v. BANK OF NEW YORK & TRUST CO. et al.

270 N.Y. 134
200 N.E. 671

HALSEY et al.
v.
BANK OF NEW YORK & TRUST CO. et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

March 3, 1936.


Action by Van Rensselaer Halsey and others against the Bank of New York & Trust Company, in which the president and directors of the Manhattan Company and others were impleaded. An order of the Special Term denying the original defendant's motion for summary judgment against the impleaded defendants was reversed by the Appellate Division (244 App. Div. 701, 279 N.Y.S. 71), which granted the motion, and the president and directors of the Manhattan Company appeal.

Judgment of the Appellate Division reversed, and order of the Special Term affirmed.


[270 N.Y. 135]Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

[200 N.E. 672]


Winfred C. Allen and Raymond B. Stringham, both of New York City, for appellants.

270 N.Y. 136]Herbert G. Roleke, of New York City, for respondent.
FINCH, Judge.

The plaintiffs brought this action against the original defendant, Bank of New York & Trust Company, to recover the sum of $2,652.12 which it was alleged the bank had improperly charged against the account of the plaintiffs. This sum was the aggregate of certain checks made payable to the order of D. P. McAlindin. It is alleged that the depository did not pay the amount of any of the checks to the named payee. The defendant Bank of New York & Trust Company [270 N.Y. 137]impleaded the other defendants and alleged as against them that the plaintiffs drew certain checks payable to the order of D. P. McAlindin; that the impleaded defendants indorsed and presented these checks to the Bank of New York & Trust Company for payment bearing the purported indorsements of the payee, D. P. McAlindin; and that these checks were paid. Apparently the plaintiffs have recovered a judgment for the full amount against the Bank of New York & Trust Company. There is nothing in the record regarding this but a copy of the judgment has been forwarded to the court subsequent to the argument. The defendant Bank of New York & Trust Company made a motion for summary judgment against the impleaded defendants which was denied at Special Term. The Appellate Division reversed and granted the motion. The president and directors of the Manhattan Company alone appeal.

The affidavits relied upon by the moving party may be briefly summarized. An affidavit of Charles D. Halsey, one of the plaintiffs, sets forth that the plaintiffs were stockbrokers, that the checks in question were drawn upon the defendant to the order of D. P. McAlindin and were duly signed by a partner or employee of the plaintiff firm authorized to sign said checks, and that the checks were paid by the defendant Bank of New York & Trust Company, and debited by it to the account of the plaintiffs. It goes on to state that the checks bear the purported indorsement of D. P. McAlindin, the payee, but that D. P. McAlindin did not indorse the checks nor authorize any one else to do so nor receive the proceeds of any of the checks. There are several affidavits of employees and partners of the plaintiffs, who signed the checks,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 practice notes
  • Cohen v. Lincoln Sav. Bank of Brooklyn
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (New York)
    • October 5, 1937
    ...who was intended by the drawer to be the payee. If such person indorsed, there is no forgery.’ Halsey v. Bank of New York & Trust Co., 270 N.Y. 134, 138, 200 N.E. 671, 673. We apply that test here. It is indeed the test which is almost universally applied in determining whether there has be......
  • United States v. First Nat. Bank of Prague, Okl., No. 2347.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • December 12, 1941
    ...v. Old Citizens' National Bank of Zanesville, 85 Ohio St. 203, 97 N.E. 395, 38 L.R. A.,N.S., 1111; Halsey v. Bank of New York & Trust Co., 270 N.Y. 134, 200 N.E. 671; Cohen v. Lincoln Savings Bank of Brooklyn, 275 N.Y. 399, 10 N.E.2d 457, 112 A.L.R. 1424; Hoffman v. American Exchange Nation......
  • Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Walston & Co.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (New York)
    • December 28, 1967
    ...that the 'imposter' rule does not apply to this case (Cohen v. Lincoln Sav. Bank, 275 N.Y. 399, 10 N.E.2d 457; Halsey v. Bank of New York, 270 N.Y. 134, 200 N.E. Since we differ with the trial court in certain material respects regarding what are the issues underlying a determination of whe......
  • Russell v. Second Nat. Bank Of Paterson., No. 7.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • October 21, 1947
    ...322, 33 N.E. 247, 34 N.E. 608, 52 Am.St.Rep. 450; Meyer v. Indiana National Bank, supra; Halsey v. Bank of New York & Trust Company, 270 N.Y. 134, 200 N.E. 671; 3 R.C.L. p. 1002, Tit. Bills and Notes, sec. 211; 7 Am.Jur. p. 435, Tit. Banks, sec. 599; Schweitzer v. Bank of America &c., 42 Ca......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 cases
  • Cohen v. Lincoln Sav. Bank of Brooklyn
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (New York)
    • October 5, 1937
    ...who was intended by the drawer to be the payee. If such person indorsed, there is no forgery.’ Halsey v. Bank of New York & Trust Co., 270 N.Y. 134, 138, 200 N.E. 671, 673. We apply that test here. It is indeed the test which is almost universally applied in determining whether there has be......
  • United States v. First Nat. Bank of Prague, Okl., No. 2347.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • December 12, 1941
    ...v. Old Citizens' National Bank of Zanesville, 85 Ohio St. 203, 97 N.E. 395, 38 L.R. A.,N.S., 1111; Halsey v. Bank of New York & Trust Co., 270 N.Y. 134, 200 N.E. 671; Cohen v. Lincoln Savings Bank of Brooklyn, 275 N.Y. 399, 10 N.E.2d 457, 112 A.L.R. 1424; Hoffman v. American Exchange Nation......
  • Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Walston & Co.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (New York)
    • December 28, 1967
    ...that the 'imposter' rule does not apply to this case (Cohen v. Lincoln Sav. Bank, 275 N.Y. 399, 10 N.E.2d 457; Halsey v. Bank of New York, 270 N.Y. 134, 200 N.E. Since we differ with the trial court in certain material respects regarding what are the issues underlying a determination of whe......
  • Russell v. Second Nat. Bank Of Paterson., No. 7.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • October 21, 1947
    ...322, 33 N.E. 247, 34 N.E. 608, 52 Am.St.Rep. 450; Meyer v. Indiana National Bank, supra; Halsey v. Bank of New York & Trust Company, 270 N.Y. 134, 200 N.E. 671; 3 R.C.L. p. 1002, Tit. Bills and Notes, sec. 211; 7 Am.Jur. p. 435, Tit. Banks, sec. 599; Schweitzer v. Bank of America &c., 42 Ca......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT