279 Pa. 345 | Pa. | 1924
Opinion by
Plaintiff sued on a surety bond given him, as treasurer of Beaver County, by defendant, as surety for the First National Bank of Beaver, to recover loss of county funds deposited in that bank. There was no substantial dispute of facts in the testimony and the trial judge instructed the jury that under the evidence defendant was liable. From a verdict and judgment in plaintiff’s favor defendant appealed.
Plaintiff as treasurer of Beaver County, maintained a deposit at the First National Bank of Beaver and, on February 24, 1921, a formal application for a bond covering the deposit was made by the bank to defendant, stipulating that the bond should be effective from the date of application. The request was made through Reisinger, who acted as defendant’s agent and was also
The first contention of appellant is that the obligation was never delivered and, consequently, no liability arose under it. Whether the mailing of the bond constituted a. delivery depends upon whether it was sent to Reisinger as agent of defendant, or as an officer of the bank: Donaldson v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 269 Pa. 456. The only evidence on this question is the fact that the letter in which the instrument was forwarded included several additional bonds for delivery to other banking institutions. This fact would support an inference that the delivery was intended to be to the agent and not to the bank. Giving defendant, however, the benefit of the doubt and assuming the bond was mailed
It is further argued that the deposit was not within the meaning of the clause in the bond providing that it should cover cash deposited “in an account subject to check.” It appears plaintiff deposited the total sum of $20,000, one-half of which it is conceded was an ordinary checking account, the other half being represented by a certificate of deposit “payable only in period of six months; interest at 3% if left six months; ......all withdrawals subject to 30 days’ notice.” Testimony was offered and received to the effect that, notwithstanding the form of the certificate, there was an oral agreement with the cashier that the certificate was subject to endorsement and surrender at any time and that the entire amount was, in fact, to be subject to check, and that the arrangement was made to enable the bank to comply with clearing house and banking regulations. This evidence was admitted over objection and not denied by defendant. The contention is the evidence was inadmissible for the reason it contradicted the written certificate of deposit. The written certificate was not the basis of the suit, however, but only a collateral issue and in such case the parol evidence rule does not apply: Everson v. Fry, 72 Pa. 326; Curtin v. Peoples Nat. Gas
The judgment is affirmed.