Saji v. Phila. Saving Fund Society
| Decision Date | 01 February 1934 |
| Docket Number | 193-1933 |
| Citation | 170 A. 334,112 Pa.Super. 149 |
| Parties | Saji, Appellant, v. Phila. Saving Fund Society |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Argued October 4, 1933
Appeal by plaintiff from judgment of C. P., No. 5, Philadelphia County, June T., 1931, No. 1313, in the case of Mari Saji v Philadelphia Saving Fund Society, a corporation.
Assumpsit to recover savings deposit. Before Lamberton, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Verdict for plaintiff in the amount of $ 1,122.75. Subsequently the court entered judgment in favor of defendant non obstante veredicto in an opinion by Smith, P. J.
Error assigned, among others, was the judgment of the court.
Affirmed.
Herman P. Abramson, and with him Samuel F. Pepper, for appellant.
J. W McWilliams, and with him A. F. Barbieri and D. H. Hamilton, for appellee.
Before Keller, Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadtfeld, Parker and James, JJ.
Appellant was plaintiff below in an action of assumpsit and obtained a verdict against the defendant saving fund society for $ 1,122.75, but the court below, in banc and with the concurrence of the trial judge, granted defendant's motion for judgment in its favor notwithstanding the verdict; from the judgment so entered upon the whole record we have this appeal by the plaintiff.
We need not refer to the pleadings in detail; the sole issue at the trial, as stipulated by counsel on both sides, was whether defendant owed appellant, as one of its depositors, the sum of $ 1,000 with interest at four per cent. from August 18, 1930, to March 30, 1931, the date of demand, and at six per cent. from that date. The defense was that the money sued for had been paid to appellant's brother, Simon Saji, upon her written order, sent to, and accepted and honored by, defendant in accordance with its rules; appellant's reply was that what purported to be her signature to the order produced and relied upon by defendant was a forgery.
The following facts were established beyond controversy at the trial: Appellant became a depositor in the defendant savings bank on November 20, 1914, and placed her signature upon a signature card, numbered 1,551,940, which contained a provision that she agreed "to conform to the by-laws and regulations of [defendant] and any amendments thereto."
A deposit book, referred to as a pass book and bearing the same number as the card, was issued to her and the card placed in the files of defendant.
Among the few withdrawals made by appellant was one under date of September 13, 1917, of $ 20 and another on April 28, 1930, of $ 575.78, for each of which she signed a receipt, produced by defendant, along with her signature card, as exhibits. After the last mentioned withdrawal there was a balance of $ 4,000 to her credit in her savings account.
About April 30, 1930, she called at the bank, informed the employes in charge she was going on a visit to Roumania, left her deposit book (taking a receipt therefor), and advised defendant she would call for her book upon her return.
One of defendant's regulations provided: "If a depositor shall be unable to attend in person to receive money, the same may be withdrawn, by power of attorney, or order signed by the depositor and acknowledged when required."
Under the heading "Banking by Mail," certain of the rules read:
On August 16, 1930, defendant received by mail the following request, the body of which was written by some person other than appellant, but purporting to have been signed by her and two witnesses:
"To
The Saving Fund Society
Philadelphia
700 Walnut Street
I have left my saving book No. 1551940 in your office. Now I beg you dear sir be so kind send the sum of 1,000 dollars one thousand Dollars to my brother Simon Saji Halmei Jnd. Salmar. Roumania.
I remain
With my greatest respect
Mari Saji
My address: Mary Saji c/o Simon Saji
Halmei Jnd. Salmar
Roumania
Halmei 930. VII. 30
Grosz Miksa
Yakob Samu."
Upon its receipt, Arthur G. Graham and Levi Wire, defendant's chief teller and assistant comptroller, respectively, each of whom has had many years experience in comparing signatures, compared the signature on the order with appellant's signature on her signature card, and, being of opinion that the order had been signed by appellant and having knowledge that her deposit book was in the custody of defendant, authorized compliance with the order.
Defendant purchased from Philadelphia National Bank a draft, payable to the order of Simon Saji, for $ 1,000, less the exchange, mailed it to him by registered letter at the address specified, and produced at the trial the cancelled draft bearing the endorsement "Simon Saji" and the return registry receipt, purporting to have been signed by him.
Appellant, who can neither read nor write, with the exception of signing her name, testified she went to Roumania, was with her brother during July and August, 1930, and returned to America in February, 1931; that her brother knew of her deposit with defendant; that she placed the receipt for her deposit book in her passport and kept both in the house of her brother who had a relation able to write English; that she did not get the draft or money and did not know whether her brother got it.
Appellant's testimony, with respect to which of her purported signatures were genuine, was conflicting and uncertain, and some of it obviously mistaken. She stated her signatures upon her identification card and upon the above mentioned withdrawal receipts were genuine. When shown her signature on the disputed order by counsel for defendant she replied, "This is my signature"; but when the paper was read to her by her own counsel and she was asked whether she had signed it, her answer then was, and added that she did not sign any letter in Roumania. Upon being shown her name below her affidavit to her statement of claim in this case, she denied having written it.
In rebuttal, appellant called Herman Barnett, experienced for thirteen years in making comparisons of signatures, who testified that a comparison of the signature on the order with that upon the original card "would have a tendency to make [him] feel that it was not exactly the same handwriting." He was shown the above mentioned withdrawal slips (the genuineness of which was acknowledged by appellant) and expressed the opinion that they were not signed by the same person who signed the order, but materially weakened the force of his testimony when he said he "would have reason to doubt" that they were signed by the same person who signed the original signature card.
At the conclusion of the testimony the defendant presented a point for binding instructions. The learned trial judge, Lamberton J., being then of opinion that appellant was entitled to go to the jury, refused the point. Adopting the language of Bulakowski v. Philadelphia Saving Fund Society, 270 Pa. 538, 113 A. 553, a case tried in 1921 against the appellee herein, he explained to the jurors the distinction between a savings bank and an ordinary commercial bank, and, with respect to the former, instructed them that as "the depositors are the only ones to derive a benefit, none being secured by the organizers or trustees, it has been deemed wise, as a matter of public policy, to adopt the rule of ordinary care with relation to funds on deposit." They were then...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Armstrong v. United States
...on the part of the bank. Bulakowski v. Philadelphia Sav. Fund Soc., 1921, 270 Pa. 538, 113 A. 553; Saji v. Philadelphia Sav. Fund Soc., 1934, 112 Pa.Super. 149, 170 A. 334. Even assuming not only that plaintiff's inquiry constituted a claim for the money, but also that the superintendent's ......