President of the Union Bank v. President of the Bank of the United States

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

President of the Union Bank v. President of the Bank of the United States

3 Mass. 74

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJuly 15, 1807

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 3 Mass. 74 (President of the Union Bank v. President of the Bank of the United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

President of the Union Bank v. President of the Bank of the United States, 3 Mass. 74 (Mass. 1807).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Parsons, C. J.

It appears from the case that on the 5th day of August, 1805, the Union Bank, being indebted to the Branch Bank paid their debt to the messenger of the Branch Bank, who had sen him to the Union Bank to receive it. On the return of the messenger to the Branch Bank with the payment he had received, the officers of that bank supposing, by mistake, that the two checks drawn by Rawson were received in payment from the Union Bank, and those checks being bad, they sent them to the Union Bank, who, crediting the affirmation of the Branch Bank, received the checks, and paid the Branch Bank for them. This payment was made by mistake; and the Union Bank may well maintain an action to recover back the money, unless they have lost their right of action by their own loches, in not seasonably detecting the mistake, or in not collecting the money due from Rawson on those checks.

In considering the facts in the case, it appears that the messenger was the servant of the Branch Bank only, and that if he committed any error in his returns of payment from the several banks, the Union Bank is not responsible for those errors. Whatever delay there was m that bank, in not collecting the checks, arose from their confiding in the mistaken affirmation of the Branch Bank ; and although this confidence might be improper, yet the Branch Bank, whose affirmation was the occasion of it, cannot take any advantage of it, they committing the first fault.

[66]*66Let judgment be entered for the plaintiffs, according to the agreement of the parties

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Parsons, C. J.

It appears from the case that on the 5th day of August, 1805, the Union Bank, being indebted to the Branch Bank paid their debt to the messenger of the Branch Bank, who had sen him to the Union Bank to receive it. On the return of the messenger to the Branch Bank with the payment he had received, the officers of that bank supposing, by mistake, that the two checks drawn by Rawson were received in payment from the Union Bank, and those checks being bad, they sent them to the Union Bank, who, crediting the affirmation of the Branch Bank, received the checks, and paid the Branch Bank for them. This payment was made by mistake; and the Union Bank may well maintain an action to recover back the money, unless they have lost their right of action by their own loches, in not seasonably detecting the mistake, or in not collecting the money due from Rawson on those checks.

In considering the facts in the case, it appears that the messenger was the servant of the Branch Bank only, and that if he committed any error in his returns of payment from the several banks, the Union Bank is not responsible for those errors. Whatever delay there was m that bank, in not collecting the checks, arose from their confiding in the mistaken affirmation of the Branch Bank ; and although this confidence might be improper, yet the Branch Bank, whose affirmation was the occasion of it, cannot take any advantage of it, they committing the first fault.

[66]*66Let judgment be entered for the plaintiffs, according to the agreement of the parties

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Mass. 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/president-of-the-union-bank-v-president-of-the-bank-of-the-united-states-mass-1807.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack