McCarthy v. North River Savings Bank

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

McCarthy v. North River Savings Bank

163 Misc. 58, 296 N.Y.S. 298, 1937 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1279

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 13, 1937

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 163 Misc. 58 (McCarthy v. North River Savings 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.

Bluebook

McCarthy v. North River Savings Bank, 163 Misc. 58, 296 N.Y.S. 298, 1937 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1279 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

We think it was the intention of the Legislature that subdivisions 1 and 2 of section 249 of the Banking Law, as they existed in 1928, should be read together so as to permit payment to be made to an infant by a savings bank of a trust deposit. The amendment of 1936 to subdivision 2 (Laws of 1936, chap. 561) merely clarified the existing law. Without passing upon the responsibility of a savings bank which pays money to an infant of such tender years as to be non sui juris, we find no proof in the present record that this infant lacked capacity to understand the transaction. Therefore, the bank was protected by the statute in giving the check to the plaintiff.

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and complaint dismissed on the merits, with costs.

All concur. Present — Levy, Hammee and Callahan, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pee Cueiam.

We think it was the intention of the Legislature that subdivisions 1 and 2 of section 249 of the Banking Law, as they existed in 1928, should be read together so as to permit payment to be made to an infant by a savings bank of a trust deposit. The amendment of 1936 to subdivision 2 (Laws of 1936, chap. 561) merely clarified the existing law. Without passing upon the responsibility of a savings bank which pays money to an infant of such tender years as to be non sui juris, we find no proof in the present record that this infant lacked capacity to understand the transaction. Therefore, the bank was protected by the statute in giving the check to the plaintiff.

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and complaint dismissed on the merits, with costs.

All concur. Present — Levy, Hammee and Callahan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 Misc. 58, 296 N.Y.S. 298, 1937 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccarthy-v-north-river-savings-bank-nyappterm-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack