OCR Text |
Show Tiik New York court of appeals has recently rendered an interesting decision de-cision in a case growing out of the celebrated cele-brated lU'.DKl.i, mortgage forgeries. The forger was employed by a firm that made a business of loaning money on mortgages. He would make an application for a loan in the name of Home person who had not authorized it, or in a fictitious name. An examination examina-tion of the records would then be made by him, and upon his report a check would be issued for the loan. These checks were endorsed by JiK.nEl.I. in the name of the party to whom they were drawn, ami cashed through other banks. When the steal was discovered the lirm brought suit against the bank for the amount lost, holding it liable for the forgeries. Tho bank, in defense, de-fense, set up that, as many of the names were fictitious, the endorsements were not forgeries, while, as to tho others, it claimed that the firm had accepted ac-cepted tho returned checks as being all right. The court, however, held tho bank responsible, and it is the final loser through Iii.PKl.l.' clever operations. opera-tions. It seems a little odd that a bank should be made to pay for the misdoings misdo-ings of a clerk that were directed against his employers, and which they were not clever enough to detect. |