President of the Union Bank v. Clossey
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of debt on a bond, conditioned that the defendant Clossey “ should well and faithfully perform the duties assigned to, and trusts reposed in him, as first teller,” &c. Plea, non damnificatus.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of debt on a bond, conditioned that the defendant Clossey “ should well and faithfully perform the duties assigned to, and trusts reposed in him, as first teller,” &c. Plea, non damnificatus. Replication, that the defendant Clossey remained in the service of the plaintiffs, as such first teller, for a long time, to wit, from, &c. to, &c. and that while he so remained in their service, he did, as such first teller, receive a large sum of money, to wit, 1,839 dollars and 95 cents, belonging to the plaintiffs, for which (although often requested) he has not accounted, or paid…
1Per curiam
Without noticing the subsequent pleadings, it is sufficient to observe that the replication is bad in substance; for it assigns no breach of trust or want of fidelity in the clerk. The bond was, that he should well and■ faithfully perform his duties as first teller; and this evidently applied to his honesty, and not to his ability in his trust. A mere mistake in overpayment of a check can never be alleged as a breach of trust, for the.mistake may happen to a teller of the purest morals and the best capacity for business.
Judgment for the defendant, with leave, &c.
2Cited by7 opinions
- State v. ChadwickOregon Supreme Court · 1882
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. v. BartlettAppellate Court of Illinois · 1886
- State ex rel. Michener v. EgbertIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
- President of the State Bank v. LockeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1834
- Bank of United States v. BrentU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · 1826
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.