United States v. Clinton Nat. Bank
| Decision Date | 05 July 1886 |
| Citation | 28 F. 357 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. CLINTON NAT. BANK. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa |
D. O Finch, U.S. Atty., and D. Donovan, Asst. U.S. Atty., for the United States.
Cummins & Wright, for defendant.
The facts are these: On October 14, 1868, W. A. Rucker, a paymaster in the United States army, drew his check on the assistant treasurer of the United States at New York for $100 bounty money, payable to the order of Cornelius D. Thrall. On October 26, 1868, the defendant presented his check to said assistant treasurer, and received the money thereon. On the back of the check appeared what purported to be the indorsement of the payee, Cornelius D. Thrall, but in fact such indorsement was false and forged. On October 9, 1880 nearly 12 years thereafter, the United States commenced this action in the district court to recover the money paid out on the strength of this forged indorsement. The defendant answered, and, among other defenses, pleaded negligence and laches on the part of the government, in this: that it was informed by said payee, Thrall, of the fact that his indorsement was forged soon after the payment of the check, and before the end of the year 1868, and that it never notified the defendant, or any one else interested in the transaction until about 10 years thereafter, and until the defendant had lost all opportunity to protect itself. To this defense the plaintiff demurred. The demurrer was overruled, and, the plaintiff standing on the demurrer, judgment was entered in favor of the defendant. From this judgment the plaintiff has appealed.
Do the facts stated constitute a defense? That no mere statute of limitations will bar a claim for money due the government is settled. U.S. v. Thompson, 98 U.S. 486. But the defendant contends that the government, dealing in commercial paper, is subject to the same rules and obligations that control individuals in like transactions, and that, as between individuals, 'it is undoubtedly necessary that the maker, acceptor, or other party who demands restitution of money paid under a forged indorsement, or under a forged signature of the drawer of a bill, should make the demand without unnecessary delay.' 2 Daniel, Neg.Inst. § 1371. The first of these two propositions was decided in Cooke v. U.S., 91 U.S. 389. See, also, U.S. v. National Bank, 6 Fed.Rep. 134. The second seems to be sustained by the common voice of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Common School Dist. No. 61 in Twin Falls County v. Twin Falls Bank & Trust Co.
...v. Abramson, 57 Ark. 142, 20 S.W. 1084; United States v. Central Nat. Bank of Philadelphia, 6 F. 134; United States v. Clinton Nat: Bank, 28 F. 357; note, 12 A. L. R. 1105, 1107, 1108, 1109; Neal Coburn, 92 Me. 139, 69 Am. St. 495, 42 A. 348, as is cited at page 1109 of 12 A. L. R.; 7 C. J.......
-
New York Cas. Co. v. Sazenski
...214 U.S. 302, 29 S.Ct. 665, 53 L.Ed. 1006, 16 Ann.Cas. 1184; United States v. First Nat. Bank, 7 Cir., 138 F.2d 681; United States v. Clinton Nat. Bank, 8 Cir., 28 F. 357; United States v. Nat. City Bank, D.C., 28 F.Supp. 144; Home Indem. Co. of New York v. State Bank, 233 Iowa 103, 8 N.W.2......
-
Ladd & Tilton Bank v. United States
...States, 91 U. S. 389, 23 L. Ed. 237; United States v. Bank of New York (C. C. A.) 219 F. 648, L. R. A. 1915D, 797; United States v. Clinton Nat. Bank (C. C.) 28 F. 357. The following authorities also in principle we think support the view here taken: United States v. Bank of Metropolis, 15 ......
-
United States v. National City Bank of New York
...the delay in bringing notice of the forgery to the defendant bank was not as long in the instant case as it was in United States v. Clinton National Bank, C.C., 28 F. 357, 358, the facts are very similar. In the last mentioned case the court said: "Do the facts stated constitute a defense? ......