Wahrman v. Bronx County Trust Co.

5 Citing cases

  1. Field v. Bankers Trust Company

    296 F.2d 109 (2d Cir. 1961)   Cited 11 times

    On the other hand, if Bankers had dishonored the checks, it might have been held liable for any damages resulting to the corporate depositor. See Wildenberger v. Ridgewood Nat. Bank, 230 N.Y. 425, 130 N.E. 600 (1930); Wahrman v. Bronx County Trust Co., 246 App. Div. 220, 285 N.Y.S. 312 (1936). Therefore, giving banks so short a time to act on checks, New York does not, consistent with the practical necessities of banking, expect a bank, without any more notice than Bankers had in this case, to make an extended investigation before paying a check.

  2. Stella Flour Feed Corp. v. National City Bank

    285 A.D. 182 (N.Y. App. Div. 1954)   Cited 37 times
    Holding that, given the “old and well-settled rule of high contractual responsibility” that “has been imposed on banks in paying money chargeable against their depositors' accounts,” courts should not impose additional responsibility in tort, as that “would push a banker's responsibility to a point far beyond the area in which the banking and commercial community have been led to believe that responsibility ended”; thus, “[t]he theory of tort liability may be discovered to overrun into breaches of contract in a very limited area; but the payment charged to a depositor's account by a bank on forged or altered drafts certainly does not come within that area”

    (Wildenberger v. Ridgewood Nat. Bank, 230 N.Y. 425; Citizens Nat. Bank of Davenport, Iowa, v. Importers & Traders' Bank, 119 N.Y. 195; Glennan v. Rochester Trust & Safe Deposit Co., 209 N.Y. 12, 17; Burroughs v. Tradesmen's Nat. Bank, 87 Hun 6, affd. 156 N.Y. 663; Clark Co. v. Mount Morris Bank, 85 App.Div. 362, affd. 181 N.Y. 533; Wahrman v. Bronx Co. Trust Co., 246 App.Div. 220; Davis v. Standard Nat. Bank, 50 App.Div. 210; Allen v. Bank of Amer. Nat. Trust & Sav. Assn., 58 Cal.App. 2d 124.) The theory underlying the causes of action in these cases--whether in tort or in contract--rests upon the implied obligation of the bank to pay in accordance with the depositor's order.

  3. Robbins v. Bankers Trust Co.

    4 Misc. 2d 347 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1956)   Cited 2 times

    The dishonor by a bank of its depositor's check, when his balance is sufficient to meet it, is a violation of the bank's duty, for which it must respond in nominal or substantial damages, depending upon the circumstances under which the dishonor occurs. ( Wildenberger v. Ridgewood Nat. Bank, 230 N.Y. 425; Wahrman v. Bronx County Trust Co., 246 App. Div. 220. ) It has been held, too, that the dishonor for insufficient funds of a check drawn by an attorney on an account in which his balance covered the check is a libel. ( Nealis v. Industrial Bank of Commerce, 200 Misc. 406.) A bank is liable for the payment of its depositor's check in violation of a stop payment order ( American Defense Soc. v. Sherman Nat. Bank, 176 App. Div. 250, affd. 225 N.Y. 506), though it may by agreement limit this liability.

  4. Nealis v. Industrial Bank of Commerce

    200 Misc. 406 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1951)   Cited 1 times

    General damage is consequent upon willful dishonor as distinguished from heedless refusal of payment. ( Wahrman v. Bronx Co. Trust Co., 246 A.D. 220.) Here there was mere accident or mistake.

  5. Nealis v. INDUS. BANK OF COMMERCE

    200 Misc. 406 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1951)

    General damage is consequent upon willful dishonor as distinguished from heedless refusal of payment. (Wahrman v. Bronx Co. Trust Co., 246 App. Div. 220.) Here there was mere accident or mistake.