Robesteien v. Franklin Savings Bank

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Robesteien v. Franklin Savings Bank

152 N.Y.S. 227

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 18, 1915

StatusPublished

This text of 152 N.Y.S. 227 (Robesteien v. Franklin 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

Robesteien v. Franklin Savings Bank, 152 N.Y.S. 227 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

PENDLETON, J.

The action was by a depositor against a savings bank. The bank had paid the deposit to a third person, who presented the bank book with an order for payment, alleged by plaintiff to have been forged. The by-laws of defendant, of which plaintiff had notice, provided that the bank would not be responsible to depositors for any fraud practiced upon its officers by presenting the bank book and draw[228]*228ing money without the depositor’s consent. The question litigated at the trial was whether defendant’s officers were guilty of negligence in paying on the forged order. The court found for defendant.

This was error. The testimony as to the comparison made of the forged signature with the genuine one kept in the bank was vague. An inspection discloses a considerable difference between the signatures. The fact that the man presenting the order said he could not write was, in connection with this difference in appearance, suspicious and should have put the defendant on its guard. The interlineations in the book were not satisfactorily explained. If the book was produced with the order, why was the entry not then made, or, if so, why was the change necessary?

The judgment should be reversed, and judgment entered for plaintiff, with costs in both courts. All concur.

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

PENDLETON, J.

The action was by a depositor against a savings bank. The bank had paid the deposit to a third person, who presented the bank book with an order for payment, alleged by plaintiff to have been forged. The by-laws of defendant, of which plaintiff had notice, provided that the bank would not be responsible to depositors for any fraud practiced upon its officers by presenting the bank book and draw[228]*228ing money without the depositor’s consent. The question litigated at the trial was whether defendant’s officers were guilty of negligence in paying on the forged order. The court found for defendant.

This was error. The testimony as to the comparison made of the forged signature with the genuine one kept in the bank was vague. An inspection discloses a considerable difference between the signatures. The fact that the man presenting the order said he could not write was, in connection with this difference in appearance, suspicious and should have put the defendant on its guard. The interlineations in the book were not satisfactorily explained. If the book was produced with the order, why was the entry not then made, or, if so, why was the change necessary?

The judgment should be reversed, and judgment entered for plaintiff, with costs in both courts. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 N.Y.S. 227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robesteien-v-franklin-savings-bank-nyappterm-1915.