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.
(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.
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.
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.
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.