National Exchange Bank v. Ginn & Co.

9 Citing cases

  1. National Bank v. Drovers & Mechanics National Bank

    122 A. 12 (Md. 1923)   Cited 3 times

    In reference to the statement that in a proper case a correction may be allowed, even after the expiration of such time, there are cited the case in 139 Mass. 513; Manufacturers' Nat. Bank v. Thompson, 129 Mass. 438, 37 Am. Rep. 376; Citizens' Cent. Nat. Bank v. New Amsterdam Nat. Bank, 128 App. Div. 554, 112 N.Y.S. 973, affirmed in 198 N.Y. 520, 92 N.E. 1080. In the note to Nat. Exchange Bank v. Ginn Co., 114 Md. 181, to be found in Ann. Cas. 1914C, beginning on p. 512, there is a full discussion of the subject of clearing houses, and on p. 522 there is a heading of "adjustment of accounts and return of repudiated items." The annotator says there is a conflict as to the right of a bank to which a check has been charged in the clearing house, and which has not repudiated it within the time prescribed by the rules, to recover the sum paid thereon as money paid under mistake on discovering that the check was forged, or that the drawer's funds were insufficient," and a number of authorities are referred to. There is some difference in the wording of the rules and regulations adopted by clearing houses in the different cities, but for the most part they are the same in effect in regard to fixing a time within which the paying bank shall give notice that a check is not good. The object in naming a time cannot be, certainly ought not to be, in doubt.

  2. Hallenbeck v. Leimert

    295 U.S. 116 (1935)   Cited 1 times

    The rules of the clearing-house are binding upon and for the benefit of its members alone and non-members cannot claim their benefit. 1 Morse, Banks Banking (6th ed.) 810; 8 Michie, Banks Banking, 165; Brady, Bank Checks (2d ed.), 503; National Exchange Bank v. Ginn Co., 114 Md. 181; Merchants National Bank v. National Bank, 139 Mass. 518. It is to be observed in this respect that the Ashland Bank, so far as it is concerned in this transaction, was no more or better than an ordinary individual customer of the Federal Reserve Bank.

  3. Hallenbeck v. Leimert

    72 F.2d 480 (7th Cir. 1934)   Cited 1 times

    The Ashland Bank was not a member of, or affiliated with, the clearing house association, and is vested with no rights based upon its rules. 1 Morse on Banks and Banking (6th Ed.) 810; National Exchange Bank v. Ginn Co., 114 Md. 181, 78 A. 1026, 33 L.R.A. (N.S.) 963, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 508; Brady on Bank Checks (2d Ed.) 503; 8 Michie on Banks and Banking, 165. In this respect the case is distinguishable from Preston v. Canadian Bank of Commerce (D.C.) 23 F. 179.

  4. In re Smith, Lockhart Co.

    3 F.2d 444 (D. Md. 1924)   Cited 2 times

    National Bank of Baltimore v. Drovers' Mechanics' National Bank, supra, and they are not of their own force binding upon persons not members of the clearing house. National Exchange Bank v. Ginn Co., 114 Md. 181, 78 A. 1026, 33 L.R.A. (N.S.) 963, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 508; Merchants' National Bank v. National Bank of Commonwealth, supra; Overman v. Hoboken City Bank, 30 N.J. Law, 61; Stuyvesant Bank v. National Mechanics' Banking Association, supra. The latter doctrine, however, does not imply that such rules or the practice under them may not have a bearing even where other parties are involved. In many such cases the result depends upon the time at which the check was paid, and that in its turn is often fixed by the mutual understanding of the bank which is said to have made the payment and the bank to which it has been made.

  5. First National Bank of Portland v. Noble

    168 P.2d 354 (Or. 1946)   Cited 27 times
    In Noble, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that a bank's right to recover a cashier's check issued in final payment of a customer's check "must be considered exactly as if the [customer's] check had been paid over the counter in cash."

    The same rule is found supported in 5 Michie, Banks and Banking (perm. ed.) § 229, p. 418. Other authorities which support the rule of § 33 of the Restatement on Restitution, either directly or by close analogy, are as follows: First National Bank v. Burkhardt, 100 U.S. 686, 25 L.Ed. 766; Levy v. The Bank of United States, 4 Dall. 234, 1 L.Ed. 814; Hayes v. Tootle-Lacy Nat. Bank (C.C.A. 10th), 72 F.2d 429; Security Nat. Bank v. Old Nat. Bank (C.C.A. 8th), 241 Fed. 1; Riverside Bank v. First Nat. Bank of Shenandoah, supra; Bank of Moulton v. Rankin, 24 Ala. App. 110, 131 So. 450; First Nat. Bank v. Devenish, 15 Colo. 229, 25 P. 177; Bank of Commerce v. Reis, 253 Ky. 648, 69 S.W. 754; Thompson v. First State Bank of Irvington, 216 Ky. 703, 288 S.W. 702; First National Bank v. Sidebottom, 147 Ky. 690, 145 S.W. 404; Neal v. Coburn, 92 Me. 139, 42 A. 348; National Exchange Bank of Baltimore v. Ginn Co., 114 Md. 181, 78 A. 1026; Manufacturers' National Bank v. Swift, 70 Md. 515, 17 A. 336; Dedham National Bank v. Everett National Bank (opinion by Holmes, C.J.), 177 Mass. 392, 59 N.E. 62 (cited with approval in First Nat. Bank v. United States Nat. Bank, supra); Boylston National Bank v. Richardson, 101 Mass. 287; Withers v. Jefferson Trust Co., 123 N.J. Eq. 113, 196 A. 442; Liberty Trust Co. v. Haggerty, 92 N.J. Eq. 609, 113 A. 596; National Bank of New Jersey v. Berrall, 70 N.J.L. 757, 58 A. 189; Oddie v. The Nat. City Bank, 45 N.Y. 735; Bank of State of South Carolina v. Hull, Dud. (S.C.L.) 259; Huffman v. Farmers' Nat. Bank (Tex.), 10 S.W.2d 753; Citizens' Bank v. Schwarzschild Sulzberger Co., 109 Va. 539, 64 S.E. 954; Oregon Iron Steel Co. v. Kelso State Bank, 129 Wn. 109, 224 P. 569; Spokane Eastern Trust Co. v. Huff, 63 Wn. 225, 115 P. 80; Pollard v. Bank of England, L.R., 6 Q.B. 622; 7 Am. Jur., Banks § 611, p. 443; 9 C.J.S., Banks and Banking § 354, p. 722 et seq.; 2 Morse, Banks and Banking (6th

  6. Liberty Natl. Bank. v. Vanderslice-Lynds Co.

    95 S.W.2d 324 (Mo. 1936)   Cited 1 times

    In Merchants National Bank v. National Bank of Commonwealth, 139 Mass. 513, 2 N.E. 89, it is ruled that as to "the regulations of this association (clearing house) the customers of the banks are not parties, and whatever effect is to be given to them as between the banks, their customers are not in a situation to claim the benefit of them, nor are they liable to be injuriously affected by them." [See, also, National Exchange Bank v. Ginn et al., 114 Md. 181, 78 A. 1026, 33 L.R.A. (N.S.) 963.] Also, so far as appears, in the case of Merchants National Bank v. National Bank of Commerce, there was no late go-back rule involved under which, as here, an item could, the endorsing bank consenting, be taken up at the counter. In the Maget case the two banks there concerned dealt with each other in the transaction involved under the reciprocal method, explained in the opinion, and such was not the case here.

  7. Bk. of Commerce v. Commercial Bank

    118 A. 855 (Md. 1922)   Cited 5 times
    In Nat. Bank of Commerce v. Balto. Commercial Bank, 141 Md. 554, we expressly affirmed that decision, notwithstanding the Negotiable Instruments Act, now in article 13 of our Code.

    Indeed the opinion filed in the case at bar concedes that the right of correction still exists and expressly affirms the 51 Md. case, supra, and thus brushes aside the main contention of appellee. See also National Exchange Bank v. Ginn Co., 114 Md. 190; where the authority of the 51 Md. case is recognized. But the Court holds that appellant was not injured, because it could have paid the trade acceptance and reimbursed itself out of another fund of the acceptor on deposit with the bank, and emphasizes the fact that it did subsequently apply this other fund towards the payment of the indebtedness of the acceptor to the bank.

  8. Nat. Bk. of Balto. v. Rockhold

    119 A. 263 (Md. 1922)   Cited 1 times

    Daniel, Negotiable Instruments (4th ed.), sec. 1608; Second National Bank of Baltimore v. Western National Bank of Baltimore, 51 Md. 128. But if, on the other hand, the facts contained in the record fail to show any fraud on the part of the plaintiff in the procurement of the certification, the bank cannot escape the binding effect of the certification and avoid the payment of the check. National Exchange Bank v. Ginn Co., 114 Md. 181. It will thus be necessary for us to examine the record and determine whether the facts, thereby disclosed, reveal any fraud on the part of the plaintiff in the procurement of the certification, or at least whether it reveals facts legally sufficient to go to the jury as tending to show such fraud. It is shown by the uncontradicted evidence, offered by the defendant, that at the time the check for $3,070 was given by Anderson to the plaintiff, Anderson was owing to the plaintiff $11,360; that the check was given in payment of $3,000 of said sum, with interest, which was owing to the plaintiff by Anderson, in his individual capacity, and which the plaintiff had ten or fifteen years before loaned to Anderson, and which he, Anderson, had loaned to or used in his business, charging it a larger interest therefor than that which he paid the plaintiff.

  9. Norton v. Mercantile Bank Trust Co.

    51 S.W.2d 1062 (Tex. Civ. App. 1932)   Cited 3 times

    " Other authorities, all to the same effect, are 3 R.C.L. 526; American Nat. Bank v. Miller, 229 U.S. 517, 33 S.Ct. 883, 57 L.Ed. 1310; National Exch. Bank v. Ginn Co., 114 Md. 181, 78 A. 1026, 33 L.R.A. (N. S.) 963, Ann.Cas. 1914C, 508; Arkansas T. B. Co. v. Bishop, 119 Ark. 373, 178 S.W. 422; First Nat. Bank v. Mammoth, etc., Co., 194 Ky. 580, 240 S.W. 78; City Nat. Bank v. Burns, 68 Ala. 267, 44 Am.Rep. 138; American Exchange Nat. Bank v. Gregg, 138 Ill. 596, 28 N.E. 839, 32 Am.St.Rep. 171. Appellee, in this connection, cites House v. Kountze, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 402, 43 S.W. 561; National Bank of the Republic v. Millard, 10 Wall. 152, 19 L.Ed. 897; First Nat. Bank v. Whitman, 94 U.S. 343, 24 L.Ed. 229; Laclede Bank v. Schuler, 120 U.S. 511, 7 S.Ct. 644, 30 L.Ed. 704; Fourth St. Nat. Bank v. Yardley, 165 U.S. 634, 17 S.Ct. 439, 41 L.Ed. 855; St. Louis S. F. Ry. Co. v. Johnston, 133 U.S. 566, 10 S.Ct. 390, 392, 33 L.Ed. 685.