Martinez v. National City Bank of New York, Civ. No. 5016.

Decision Date09 November 1948
Docket NumberCiv. No. 5016.
Citation80 F. Supp. 545
PartiesMARTINEZ v. NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW YORK, SAN JUAN BRANCH.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

Cesar Andreu Ribas, of San Juan, Puerto Rica, for plaintiff.

H. S. McConnell, of San Juan, Puerto Rico, for defendant.

CHAVEZ, District Judge.

Findings of Fact.

1. The Defendant The National City Bank of New York is a national banking association organized under the laws of the United States of America, with principal office in the city and State of New York, and this is a suit of a civil nature arising out of a transaction involving banking in an insular possession of the United States, namely, the Island of Puerto Rico.

2. The plaintiff, John Martinez, on, prior and subsequent to November 18, 1946, maintained in his individual name a deposit account with the San Juan, Puerto Rico Branch of the defendant. Under date of November 16, 1946, the plaintiff drew a check on the said account, payable to one Telesforo del Valle, for the amount of $1,000.

3. The plaintiff, together with the said Telesforo del Valle, also maintained, on and prior to November 18, 1946, a joint deposit account with the said San Juan Branch of the defendant, the said account being entitled "John Martinez and/or Telesforo del Valle". The said account is hereinafter referred to as "the joint account".

4. The aforesaid Telesforo del Valle, on, prior and subsequent to November 18, 1946, also maintained a deposit account in his individual name with the said San Juan Branch of the defendant.

5. At the opening of business on November 18, 1946, which was at or a few minutes before nine o'clock in the morning, Telesforo del Valle presented to Manuel Bermudez, one of the tellers in the said San Juan Branch of the defendant, a deposit slip made out on one of the printed forms used by the said Branch, indicating the desire of the said Telesforo del Valle to deposit to his individual account the sum of $1,610.15. The deposit was indicated on the slip as being in bills and not in checks.

6. Simultaneously with presentation of the deposit slip to the teller, Telesforo del Valle also presented to the teller the check drawn on the individual account of John Martinez for $1,000 mentioned in finding number 2 above and two other checks for $50 and $560.15, respectively, both drawn on the joint account of Martinez and del Valle. The total of the three checks was the same as the amount shown on the deposit slip, namely, $1,610.15.

7. Upon presenting the deposit slip and the three checks to the teller, Telesforo del Valle requested the teller to cash the three checks and to deposit the cash to his individual account, as indicated in the deposit slip.

8. The teller left his cage and went to the current account department of the defendant and verified from the ledger sheet that there were sufficient funds, in the individual account of John Martinez to cover the check for $1,000. The teller did not, at that time, examine the ledger sheet of the joint account. The teller returned to his cage and entered in the passbook of Telesforo del Valle a credit for the amount of the deposit, namely, $1,610.15. Del Valle then left the bank at approximately three minutes after nine o'clock. The deposit slip and the checks were in the usual course of business sent to the transit department of the bank.

9. Shortly before nine o'clock on the same morning, namely, November 18, 1946, John Martinez went to the desk of Manuel Net, the officer of the defendant then in charge of receiving stop payment orders, and stated that he wanted to stop payment on the $1,000 check mentioned in finding number two, and to close the joint account mentioned in paragraph 3. Following the usual practice, Net went to the current accounts department and verified from the ledger sheet that the check for $1,000 had not been charged to the account of Martinez. Net returned to his desk and filled out a stop payment order on the bank's printed form for signature by Martinez. The stop payment order indicates that it was signed at nine o'clock in the morning.

10. Following the signing of the stop payment order, Net produced the ledger sheet for the joint account of Martinez and del Valle. At that time Martinez produced a blank check signed by himself and Telesforo del Valle, and stated to Net that the check had beeen given to him to fill out for the amount of the balance in the account. Martinez filled out the blank check for $1,514.72. The balance shown on the ledger sheet for the joint account at that time was $1,581.72. Martinez thereupon filled out a deposit slip for the deposit of this check and others to his individual account, and left the banking offices. Martinez finished his business with Net and left the bank about 9:10 or 9:15 in the morning.

11. Net testifies that at the time Martinez was signing the stop payment order, he saw Telesforo del Valle at the teller's window and told Martinez of this fact, and that Martinez stated, "I know it". Martinez denies that he saw del Valle in the bank at that time and denies that Net told him of his presence there. The Court finds that Net did see del Vallee at the tellers' window and did tell Martinez of that fact.

12. It is the usual practice of the defendant bank in handling stop payment orders to observe the following steps; namely, to determine from the ledger in the current accounts department whether the check in question has been charged to the depositor's account; if not, the officer in charge then fills out a printed form of stop payment order, and has the depositor sign the same; upon the signing of the stop payment order, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • First Federal Sav. and Loan Ass'n of Puerto Rico v. Ruiz De Jesus
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • March 17, 1981
    ...Gonzalez Roman v. The Federal Land Bank of Baltimore, 303 F.Supp. 482 (D.P.R.1969). Compare Martinez v. National City Bank of Puerto Rico, 80 F.Supp. 545, 547 (D.P.R.1948) (a pre-1952 case in which jurisdiction was assumed under section Despite this consistent historical understanding that ......
  • Fumero-Vidal v. First Federal Sav. Bank
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • March 6, 1992
    ...stated, There is no doubt that in cases where the controversy involved certain stop payments of checks, Martinez v. National City Bank of New York, 80 F.Supp. 545 (D.C.P.R., 1948), or where the bank sued on a promissory note, National City Bank of New York v. Puig, 106 F.Supp. 1 (D.C.P.R., ......
  • CONJUGAL SOC., ETC. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • October 13, 1981
    ...1981). There is no doubt that in cases where the controversy involved certain stop payments of checks, Martínez v. National City Bank of New York, 80 F.Supp. 545 (D.C.P.R., 1948), or where the bank sued on a promissory note, National City Bank of New York v. Puig, 106 F.Supp. 1 (D.C.P.R., 1......

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