Merchants' Nat. Bank of Gardner v. Clark

• Decision Date: 03 October 1893
• Citation: 139 N.Y. 314,34 N.E. 910
• Parties: MERCHANTS' NAT. BANK OF GARDNER v. CLARK et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

139 N.Y. 314

34 N.E. 910

MERCHANTS' NAT. BANK OF GARDNER

v.CLARK et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Oct. 3, 1893.

Appeal from supreme court, general term, second department.

Action by the Merchants' National Bank of Gardner, Me., against John Clark and E. H. Close. From a judgment of the general term (19 N. Y. Supp. 136) affirming a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Henry Daily, Jr., for appellants.

Edward B. Merrill, for respondent.

GRAY, J.

The promissory notes sued upon in this case were in the same form as was the note in the case of the Casco National Bank against the same defendants, decided at this term. 34 N. E. Rep. 908. The reasons given for the affirmance of the judgment in that case apply to the present. These appellants, however, claim that there was error committed by the trial court in the exclusion of evidence offered for the purpose of showing that the plaintiff knew, at the time it discounted the notes, that they were the notes of the Ridgewood Ice Company, and not the notes of these defendants. It appears that at that time Dennis, who was a director of the Clark & Chaplin Ice Company, the payee in the notes, and which procured them to be discounted, was also the president of the plaintiff. The notes were handed to him in the company's office. He was not examined, and it was not shown that he was conversant with the transaction out of which the note arose, or how it was made; but, assuming that he was, his knowledge was not attributable to the plaintiff. When it is sought to prove that the plaintiff took the note, knowing it to be the promise of the Ridgewood Company, and not that of the appellants, it is essential that the knowledge to be attributed to the plaintiff should have been acquired by its officer, not casually, and through his individual relations to the other parties, but in an official capacity, and because of a necessity for him to inquire and to know the facts in behalf of the bank. That was not this case. Dennis, receiving these notes from the company of which he was a director, to be offered for discount by the board of his bank, was under no obligation to state to the board what his opinion was as to the liability of the parties appearingas maker upon the notes. The questions which were put for the purpose of showing a knowledge by plaintiff that these were the notes of the Ridgewood Company were addressed to the defendant Close, and related to conversations bad with Dennis, or...