Hill v. Trust Co.

• Decision Date: 05 January 1885
• Citation: 108 Pa. 1
• Parties: Hill, Administratrix, <I>versus</I> The Nation Trust Company.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 1

108 Pa. 1

Hill, Administratrix, versus The Nation Trust Company.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

November 6, 1884.

January 5, 1885.

November 6th, 1884.

Before MERCUR, C. J., GORDON, PAXSON, TRUNKEY, STERRETT, GREEN and CLARK, JJ.

ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 2, of Allegheny county: Of October and November Term, 1884, No. 180 Thos. C. Lazear (Chas. P. Orr with him) for plaintiff in error.—The plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of every inference of fact which the jury might have drawn from the evidence: Maynes v. Atwater, 7 Norris 496; Bevan v. Ins. Co., 9 W. & S. 187.

It was competent to prove that the assistant teller had power to certify the check, either by showing a direct delegation from the authorized officers, or by their subsequent sanction, or by a course of dealing on the part of defendants, or by a well-established usage on the subject.

In the absence of knowledge on the part of Baum or the plaintiff, the lack of funds of the drawer is immaterial: Farmers' & Mech. Bank v. Butchers' & Drovers' Bank, 14 N. Y. 624; Merchants' Bank v. State Bank, 10 Wall. 604; Cooke v. State National Bank, 52 N. Y. 96.

George Shiras, Jr. (S. Schoyer, Jr., and J. B. Herron, Jr., with him), for defendant in error.—All the evidence which tended to show that the defendants had permitted Blair to exercise the power of certifying checks in other instances was irrelevant, because it was not shown that such instances were known to Baum or to Hill, or that they relied upon, and acted in view of them, and hence the bank was not estopped by such evidence. Even if the cashier did direct the check to be certified, he had no right to certify a check himself, when the drawer had no funds, and could not delegate the power to Blair: Mussey v. Eagle Bank, 9 Met. 306; Atlantic Bank v. Merchants' Bank, 10 Gray 551; Pope v. Bank of Albion, 57 N. Y. 126. Moreover, neither Baum nor the plaintiff knew of such direction, and the company cannot be affected unless the check was taken on the strength of such direction.

Mr. Justice STERRETT delivered the opinion of the court, January 5th, 1885.

In our practice, a peremptory nonsuit is in the nature of a judgment for defendant on demurrer to evidence; and hence, in testing the validity of such nonsuit, the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of every inference of fact which might have been fairly drawn by the jury from the evidence before them: Maynes v. Atwater, 7 Norris, 496. It is immaterial that the evidence in support of a plaintiff's claim may be very slight, provided it amounts to more than a mere scintilla. If there is any evidence which alone would justify an inference of the disputed facts on which his right to recover depends, it must, according to the well-settled rule, be submitted to the jury. It is their exclusive province to pass upon the credibility of witnesses, weigh the evidence and ascertain the facts: Express Co. v. Wile, 14 P. F. S. 201.

The defendants, on whom the check in suit was drawn, were an unincorporated association doing a general banking business in the name of the "Nation Trust Company." Their copartnership relation in that business is not controverted.

The check, drawn by Michael O'Hara to his own order, after being indorsed and delivered by him to Andrew J. Baum, was presented by the latter at the counter of the company's bank; but, instead of being paid, it was marked "Good, T. D. Blair, A. teller," and returned to Baum, who shortly afterwards passed it by delivery to plaintiff. The presumptive title of plaintiff, as bona fide holder of the certified check, was fortified by testimony tending to prove, not only that Baum was a holder for value without notice of any defect, but that plaintiff was likewise an innocent purchaser for value. Under these circumstances, nothing more was required, to make out a prima facie case for plaintiff, than to show an acceptance or certification of the check, on behalf...