Crouse v. First National Bank
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered upon an order made July 1, 1891, which reversed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee, and ordered a new trial. This action was brought to recover damages for defendant’s alleged negligence in and about the collection of a draft sent to it by plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered upon an order made July 1, 1891, which reversed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee, and ordered a new trial. This action was brought to recover damages for defendant’s alleged negligence in and about the collection of a draft sent to it by plaintiff. Dinehart being indebted to the firm of Crouse & Walrath in the sum of $800, for goods sold, the firm made a draft in the following form viz.: ‘ Syracuse, FT. Y. Feb. 14, 1886. “At sight (protest waived) pay…
1Opinion of the CourtGray, J.
We think the reversal of the judgment was right. 'The facts disclosed by the evidence did not make out a case of negligence; nor did they show that the plaintiff’s firm had suffered any damage by reason of anything on the part of the bank. The evidence was wholly insufficient to support the referee’s findings in those respects.
As we read this record, no inference was permissible from the evidence that the bank had failed in any duty towards the plaintiff’s firm. The draft in question was merely a convenient mode adopted by the firm of Crouse & Walrath to collect a portion of a debt due them…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Wilhelm Foods, Inc. v. National Bank of No. Amer.District Court, S.D. New York · 1974