Marcuson v. Yorkville Bank
This text of 147 N.Y.S. 472 (Marcuson v. Yorkville Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
One Morris Kushner, who was ill of tuberculosis in a hospital, wrote a letter to the Public Bank, in which he had a deposit of $70, requesting the Public Bank to pay whatever money he had on deposit to his son, Harry Kushner. Harry Kushner presented the letter to the Public Bank, and received a cashier’s check, drawn by the Public Bank upon the National Bank of Commerce, payable to the order of Morris Kushner. Harry Kushner indorsed the check in Hebrew in his own name and delivered it to Sadie R. Marcuson, the plaintiff, who then indorsed it and delivered it to the defendant, York-ville Bank. The Yorkville Bank received payment through the New York Clearing House, and indorsed it with the usual receipt, “In[473]*473dorsements guaranteed.” About 11 months thereafter the National Bank of Commerce wrote the Yorkville Bank that a claim had been made by the Public Bank that the money had been paid without the indorsement of the payee, Morris Kushner,. upon the check. After discovering that such was the fact, and that the check was not paid upon'the order of Morris Kushner, the Yorkville Bank repaid the money to the National Bank of Commerce, who in turn refunded it to the Public Bank.
If the facts showed an intention upon the part of the Public Bank to make Harry Kushner the actual payee of the check, and that he was the individual to whom payment should have been made, a different, question would have been raised; but in my opinion there is no evidence of such intention. The teller of the Public Bank testified that it was the custom of the bank, when it received orders of this kind from its depositors, to make the checks given thereon payable to the depositor himself, in order to protect the bank. This and the check itself are the only evidence of the intention of the drawer of the check presented to the court, and a finding of any other intent than that stated in the check would be totally unsupported by proof.
There is no injustice in this disposition of the case. If Harry Kushner is entitled to the money as donee causa mortis or inter vivos, or by assignment, as claimed by the appellant, the money is in the Public Bank in the name of Morris Kushner, deceased, and can be obtained by Harry Kushner upon proof of his right to it, or by the plaintiff by an appropriate action in equity.
[474]*474The judgment should be affirmed, with costs, with leave to appeal to the Appellate Division, First Department.
LEHMAN, J., concurs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
147 N.Y.S. 472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marcuson-v-yorkville-bank-nyappterm-1914.