National Dredging Co. v. President, Directors and Co., of Farmers Bank of State of Delaware
Citation | 22 Del. 580,69 A. 607 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Delaware |
Decision Date | 06 May 1908 |
Parties | NATIONAL DREDGING COMPANY, plaintiff below, appellant, v. THE PRESIDENT, DIRECTORS AND COMPANY OF THE FARMERS BANK OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, defendant below, respondent |
Supreme Court adjourned, January Term, 1908.
Writ of Error.
The judgment is reversed, and case remanded.
Anthony Higgins and William S. Hilles for plaintiff.
Herbert H. Ward and Henry Ridgely, Jr. for respondent.
OPINION
NICHOLSON, CH.
This was an action of assumpsit in the Superior Court for New Castle County, brought by the National Dredging Company plaintiff in error, as plaintiff below, against the Farmers' Bank to recover an alleged balance of account.
The plaintiff's bill of particulars contained an itemized list of the deposits made by the plaintiff with the defendant, subject to check, from February, 1897, to April 2 1903, amounting in the aggregate to one million, nine hundred and fifty-one thousand, eight hundred and twenty-three dollars and forty-two cents ($ 1,951,823.42), and a list of checks alleged by the plaintiff to be wrongfully charged by the defendant to the account of the plaintiff within the same period, amounting in the aggregate to thirty-one thousand, five hundred and six dollars and eighty-six cents ($ 31,506.86).
A motion for a nonsuit was submitted by counsel for the defendant at the close of the plaintiff's testimony and was granted by a majority of the Court. Counsel for the plaintiff refused to take a nonsuit, and a majority of the Court thereupon directed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant.
SPRUANCE, J., delivered a dissenting opinion, saying in conclusion, "with proper instructions from the Court as to the law, I believe that a more just and satisfactory result would be reached by the verdict of the jury, than by the determination of both facts and law by the Court."
'For the reasons which the majority of the Court gave in their decision to grant a nonsuit in this case, we direct you to return a verdict for the defendant.'
Obviously, it will be necessary to consider the evidence in detail, in order to arrive at a correct understanding of the question presented to this Court, but a general preliminary outline of the facts in the case may be best given by quoting from the opinion of the learned Chief Justice in the Court below, as follows:
The bank claims, on the other hand, that the course of conduct and the business methods of Barker, the president and treasurer of the plaintiff company (depositor), in connection with the transactions in controversy, as disclosed by the testimony of the plaintiff, constituted such gross negligence and so misled the bank as to relieve the defendant from all responsibility from the loss occasioned by its payment of the altered checks to Churchman.
There is no question of fraud or intentional misconduct on the part of either the plaintiff or defendant, but in order to determine which of the parties to the suit must bear the loss resulting from the crime of William H. Churchman, it is, of course, necessary for the issues of negligence, which are presented, to be decided; and the question for this Court to determine is whether it was proper for the Court below, under the evidence before it, to withdraw the case from the jury.
In the absence of either prior or subsequent negligence or misleading conduct on the part of a depositor, a bank or banker cannot charge the depositor with any payments, except such as are made in conformity with his orders, for the relation of a bank and its depositors is one simply of debtor and creditor, and it matters not what care is exercised and what precautions are taken by the bank, no payment made otherwise can be charged against the depositor, even though it be made in consequence of forgeries so skilfully executed as to deceive the most expert, or by false pretenses so adroit and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Airco Supply Co. v. Albuquerque Nat. Bank
...Bank of Birmingham v. Allen, 100 Ala. 476, 14 So. 335, 27 L.R.A. 426; National Dredging Co. v. President, etc., of Farmers' Bank of State of Delaware, 6 Pennewill 580, 22 Del. 580, 69 A. 607, 16 L.R.A.,N.S., 593. However, appellant is precluded from holding the bank liable for paying out on......
-
Fletcher American National Bank v. Crescent Paper Company
... ... a designated state bank, to the credit of a fictitious ... account ... Jordan Marsh ... Co. v. National Shawmut Bank (1909), 201 Mass ... 117, 120, 75 A. 313; Holden v ... Farmers' & Traders' Nat. Bank (1915), 77 ... N.H. 535, ... the treasurer and countersigned by the president or the ... secretary, each of whom was head of a ... 657, 29 L.Ed. 811; National Dredging ... Co. v. Farmers' Bank (1908), 22 Del. 580, ... ...
-
Indiana Bank & Trust Co. v. Lincoln Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Fort Wayne
...Mfrs. N. Bank v. Morgan [1885], 117 U.S. 96, 6 Sup.Ct. 657, 29 L.Ed. 811; National Dredging Co. v. President of Farmers' Bank [1908], (6 Pennewill) 580, 22 Del. 580, 69 Atl. 609 , 16 L.R.A. (N.S.) 593, 130 Am.St. 158; * * *.' Fletcher, etc., Bank v. Crescent Paper Co., supra, page 342 of 19......
-
Tharp v. St. Georges Trust Co.
... ... GEORGES TRUST CO.Court of Chancery of Delaware.Sept. 17, 1943 ... Bill by ... Company by Benjamin Vinton, its Vice-President. Immediately after the mortgages had been ... The only information furnished was: (1) A bank statement of Levi Tharp's account, showing the ... National Dredging Co. v. President, etc., of Farmers' ... Crooks State Bank, 55 S.D. 209, 225 N.W. 661, 64 A.L.R. 614; 4 ... ...