Savings Banks Trust Company v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and American Savings Bank
SAVINGS BANKS TRUST COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Appellee, and American Savings Bank, Defendant
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
The present case arose out of the theft of a signed but otherwise incomplete teller’s check drawn on an account maintained by Franklin Savings Bank with the plaintiff, Savings Banks Trust Company (“Savings”). Savings received a written stop payment order with respect to the check in question from Franklin. Persons not involved in the present litigation completed the check and proceeded to deposit it in a North Carolina bank. The check came into possession of the defendant Federal Reserve Bank of New York through ordinary collection channels and was presented to Savings for payment. Savings failed to *574 dishonor the check or to apprise the defendant of an intention to dishonor within the time specified by the Thrift Institution Collection Arrangement and New York Uniform Commercial Code Section 4-212 (McKinney 1964). Defendant thereupon debited Savings’ account in the amount of the check and Savings brought the present action to recover the amount in question.
Savings’ action against the Federal Reserve Bank is based on a claim that it breached the presenter’s warranty of no material alterations in the check in question as provided by New York Uniform Commercial Code § 4-207(l)(c) (McKinney 1964). However, Section 4-207 accords such a warranty only to a “payor bank ... who in good faith pays or accepts the item.”
Savings argues that the requisite “good faith” exists even when a party has sound reason to be suspicious so long as it does not have actual guilty knowledge. However, knowledge and disregard of suspicious circumstances are sufficient to vitiate an assertion of good faith where negotiable instruments are concerned.
In Re Legel Braswell Government Securities Corp., 695 F.2d 506 (11th Cir.1983);
Otten v. Marasco, 235 F.Supp. 794 (S.D.N.Y.1964), aff'd 353 F.2d 563 (2d Cir.1965).
See also H. Bailey, Brady on Bank Checks § 8.5 (1984 Cum.Supp. No. 1). Since receipt of the stop order by Savings imparted knowledge of suspicious circumstances sufficient to bar an action under Section 4-207, we affirm.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company v. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A. v. Mellon Bank (East) National Association
- Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta v. Thomas
- Morgan Guaranty Trust Company Of New York v. American Savings And Loan Association
- Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. v. American Savings & Loan Ass'n
- Joint Venture Asset Acquisition v. Zellner
- Kathleen Carr v. Marietta Corporation
Most recent
- ARTISTIC TILE, INC. v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
- Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta v. Thomas
- Kathleen Carr v. Marietta Corporation
- Joint Venture Asset Acquisition v. Zellner
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company v. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A. v. Mellon Bank (East) National Association
- Morgan Guaranty Trust Company Of New York v. American Savings And Loan Association
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.