Opinion · Supreme Court of New Jersey
New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. National Newark & Essex Banking Co.
119 N.J. Eq. 540
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of New Jersey
- Jurisdiction
- New Jersey
- Date
- 1936-01-31
- Topic
- general
*541 Per Curiam. We are in full accord with the reasoning and conclusions of the opinion filed by Vice-Chancellor Backes in the court of chancery; and the decree is therefore affirmed. We do not find it necessary, in reaching this conclusion, to consider the soundness of the view stated by the author of Perry on Trusts (7th ed.) 177, and incorporated in the opinion, that, although the depositor’s conduct or course of dealing “may bring to the notice of the bank circumstances which would enable it to know that he is violating his trust, such circumstances do not impose upon the bank the duty or give it the right to institute any inquiry into the conduct of its customer, in order to protect those for whom the customer may hold the fund, but between whom and the bank there is no privity,” and we therefore express no opinion thereon. Decree affirmed. For affirmance —The Chief-Justice, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, JJ. 12.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. National Newark & Essex Banking Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Authority status
- pending
- Cited by
- 12 opinions
We are in full accord with the reasoning and conclusions of the opinion filed by Vice-Chancellor Backes in the court of chancery; and the decree is therefore affirmed.
We do not find it necessary, in reaching this conclusion, to consider the soundness of the view stated by the author of Perry on Trusts (7th ed.) 177, and incorporated in the opinion, that, although the depositor’s conduct or course of dealing “may bring to the notice of the bank circumstances which would enable it to know that he is violating his trust, such circumstances do not impose upon the bank the duty or give it the right to institute any inquiry into the conduct of its customer, in order to protect those for whom the customer may hold the fund, but between whom and the bank there is no privity,” and we therefore express no opinion thereon.
Decree affirmed.
For affirmance —The Chief-Justice, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, JJ. 12.
For reversal — None.