8. Proper Authority

A bank should be careful to pay only on adequate authority, and the fact that the presenter of a book is the depositor's husband should not incline the bank to depart more readily from its well-known rules, now observed perhaps everywhere, requiring the presentation of the book and also its owner or an order from him. In one of the cases a husband, W. C, went with his wife's book and told the teller that the money belonged to him, and that his wife, E. C, had sent him for it. The teller finally gave him a check for the amount payable to his wife's order, which, however, the drawee bank refused to pay without the wife's indorsement. So he returned to the savings bank, and, after convincing its officers that he was authorized to do business for his wife, the following indorsement was made:

" Ellen Clark, as authorized by William Clark. Witness: John Jones." On this indorsement the national bank paid the check. She sued for her deposit, and the bank was obliged to pay on the ground of having acted negligently. It is true that the husband had the book, but once more the court declared that the by-law authorizing a bank to pay on the production of the pass book "does not permit bank officers to carefully close their eyes and pay any person presenting the pass book; but, on the contrary, they owe the depositors active diligence in order to detect fraud and forgery." 1

9. Payment Of Joint Deposits

Deposits are sometimes made to the joint credit of two or more persons, and difficulties arise in paying them. When a deposit is thus made to the credit of two persons, each is regarded as owning one half of the amount. Thus on one occasion a husband deposited money belonging to himself in a savings bank to his own credit, but told the clerk that he-wished to have the deposit so entered that either he or his wife could draw the money. The clerk required both to enter their names in the signature book and opposite to them he wrote the words, " To be drawn by either," and gave a pass book to the husband. Alter his death she sought to draw the deposit, but the court held that she was simply the agent of her husband, and could only draw money from the bank during his lifetime. The deposit had not been given to her, and all authority to do anything with it ceased with his death.

1 Clark v Saugerties Saving Bank, 62 Hun ; 346

In another case M. and her nephew O. opened an account with a bank and stated to the teller at the time of making the first deposit that either of them or both could draw the money. The account was entered to the credit of M. or O. Both continued to add to the deposit fund until O.'s death. Then M. notified the bank that O.'s wife had the book, and not to pay the deposit to her. O.'s wife, however, appeared with the book and letters of administration, showing full authority to administer on O.'s estate, and the bank paid to her the full amount. M. then sued to recover the deposit, and the lower court decided in her favor. The Court of Appeals, however, held differently, that O.'s representative had an interest in the deposit as well as M., but that M.'s notice of her right to the deposit was a prohibition which the bank should have respected so far as to withhold payments to the administrator of the deposits made by M. In other words, she was entitled to recover that portion of the joint deposit she had put into the bank.1