Denbigh v. First National Bank

Citations

• 102 Wash. 546
• 174 P. 475
• 1918 Wash. LEXIS 1245

Syllabus

<p>Banks and Banking—Payment of Forged Check—Evidence— Sufficiency. In a depositor’s action to recover from a bank the amount paid out on a forged check, there is sufficient evidence of the forgery, where plaintiff testified that he did not sign the check, which disappeared when, during his absence, it came into the hands of his bookkeeper who absconded, having also forged another check about the same time.</p> <p>Same—Payment of Forged Check—Liability—Defenses—Negligence of Depositor. A bank has no right to charge against the depositor the amount paid out on a forged check, unless the depositor is estopped by his course of conduct, negligence or laches; and negligence is not shown by the employment of a bookkeeper who was recommended by a reputable firm, without notice of a previous criminal charge against him under an assumed name.</p> <p>Same—Payment of Forged Check—Notice by Depositor—Limitations. In viéw of Rem. Code, § 3363, limiting a bank’s liability to depositors on forged checks, unless notice be given the bank within sixty days, a shorter limitation by contract will not be assumed from the fact of printed notice on the pass book requiring notice to be given within ten days, where the same was not specially called to the depositor’s attention.</p> <p>Same—Payment of Forged Check—Notice by Depositor—Diligence. Diligence in giving notice of the payment of a forged check is shown where it appears that the depositor was absent when his bookkeeper, who committed the forgery, receipted for the vouchers, that he employed another bookkeeper within five days, and discovered the forgery within eight days, after his return and immediately gave notice thereof to the bank.</p>