Isham v. Post
New York Supreme Court
Henry H. Isham, trustee of the Trumbull estate of Hew Jersey, having $25,000 belonging to the trust uninvested, gave a check for this amount to Augustus T. Post, who was a banker a,nd dealer in investment securities, to loan for him. The check was signed “ Henry H. Isham, trustee.” Upon receipt of the check Hr. Post loaned the $25,000 to Hills, Robeson & Smith, who entered the loan upon their books as made to Post.
Read the full summary
Henry H. Isham, trustee of the Trumbull estate of Hew Jersey, having $25,000 belonging to the trust uninvested, gave a check for this amount to Augustus T. Post, who was a banker a,nd dealer in investment securities, to loan for him. The check was signed “ Henry H. Isham, trustee.” Upon receipt of the check Hr. Post loaned the $25,000 to Hills, Robeson & Smith, who entered the loan upon their books as made to Post. The collateral upon which the loan was made was the stock of the Chicago, Hilwaukee and St. Paul railroad (preferred) and the Hew York and Hew England railroad. The certificates…
1Opinion of the CourtCullen, J.
Even though the plaintiff were a party to the wrong, if the defendant’s intestate was guilty of a spoliation *185of the trust estate, the plaintiff, in Ms representative character, can maintain this action. But I do not tliink that the loaii Mr. Post assumed to make was per se a misuse of trust funds, for which he would be responsible. The word “ trustee ” in the check gave notice to the banker that the funds were not or might not be the property of the plaintiff individually. Jaudon v. Nat. City Bank, 8 Blatchf. 430; Shaw v. Spencer, 100 Mass. 382; Baker v. Bliss, 39 N. Y. 70.
Therefore, if the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Shaw v. SpencerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
- Baker v. . BlissNew York Court of Appeals · 1868
- Jaudon v. National City BankU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1871
- Peckham v. KetchumThe Superior Court of New York City · 1860
3Cited by1 opinion
- Isham v. PostNew York Supreme Court · 1893