Goddard v. . the Merchants' Bank
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from the superior court of the city of Hew-York, where Goddard and St. John brought assumpsit against the Merchants’ Bank, to recover hack money paid by mistake.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the superior court of the city of Hew-York, where Goddard and St. John brought assumpsit against the Merchants’ Bank, to recover hack money paid by mistake. On the 15th of September, 184?, a man calling himself E. S. Moore, presented to the bank of Rutland, in Vermont, a draft as follows : [148] “ $1000. Cleveland, Ohio, August 28,1847. Canal Bank, Pay to order of E. S. Moore, one thousand dollars, value received, which place to the account of S. H. Maun, Cashier. To American Exchange Bank, 1ST. Y. Ho. 214.” The man calling himself Moore, indorsed the draft to the Bank of Rutland,…
1Opinion of the Court
Bronson, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court.
[149] The drawee of a hill is held bound to know the hand-writing of his correspondent, the drawer; and if he accepts or pays a bill in the hands of a bona fide holder for value, he is concluded by the act, although the bill turns out to be a forgery. If he has accepted, he must pay; and if he has paid, he can not recover the money back. This is an exception to the general rule, that money paid under a mistake of fact may be recovered back. The exception is fully established; but I do not see that it applies to this case. As the plaintiffs…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Home Indemnity Co. v. State BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1943
- Bergstrom v. Ritz-Carlton Restaurant & Hotel Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1916
- Neal v. CoburnSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1898
- Guaranty State Bank & Trust Co. v. LivelyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1912
- United States v. Bank of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1914
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.