Rankin v. Chase National Bank

Citations

• 188 U.S. 557
• 23 S. Ct. 372
• 47 L. Ed. 594
• 1903 U.S. LEXIS 1300

Syllabus

<p>The cashier of a bank in Elmira owing individually to the New York correspondent bank $15,012.50 tendered $8000 in currency and a draft for $7000'made to himself by himself as cashier on a Philadelphia bank with which the Elmira bank had funds. ¶116 New York bank declined to accept the draft on Philadelphia on account of risk and delay in collection and demanded funds current in New York. Thereupon the cashier drew his own check on the Elmira bank for the entire amount and certified it himself as cashier making it payable at the New York hank witli which the Elmira bank had sufficient balance to pay the same without the $7000 draft. The New York bank accepted this check in payment of the debt and charged it to the Elmira bank’s account. At the same time it credited that bank with the $8000 currency and took from the cashier the $7000 draft which was then made payable to himself as cashier, and after the proceeds had .been collected credited the Elmira bank with them also. It subsequently developed that the cashier had no balance to his'individual account in the Elmira bank and thát he had stolen from it the $8000 of currency. In the court below it was found as fact that there was no evidence of bad faith on the part of the New York bank in the transaction and it was also found that there was no evidence to justify any departure from the rule that a person accepting the check of a cashier certified by himself and in payment of an individual debt does so at his peril and without recourse against the bank in case the cashier does not actually have the funds on deposit wherewith to meet the check.</p> <p>In regard to the contention of the New York bank that it was entitled either to charge the $15,012.50 check against the Elmira bank or to retain both the $8000 in currency and the proceeds of the $7000 draft, in payment of the debt, it was held,:—</p> <p>(1) That as no exception was saved as to the rulings of the court below in regard to the illegality of the $15,012