youtube videoA Downgrade to China’s Economic Outlook
: Northern trust company bank
|Southwest airlines chase credit card login|
|Financial partners credit union springfield illinois|
|CAPITAL ONE CREDIT CARD SUPPORT LINE|
|DOUGS HYUNDAI EDMONDS|
|Northern trust company bank|
Northern Trust Company - Company Profile, Information, Business Description, History, Background Information on Northern Trust Company
Chicago, Illinois 60675
History of Northern Trust Company
Not as large as Chase Manhattan, nor as well known as J. P. Morgan, the Northern Trust Company has built a solid reputation on personal trust management. With stable leadership, conservative but sound policies, and the ability to create its own opportunities, this century-old bank is regarded as one of the most reliable banking institutions in the United States.
The Northern Trust Company was founded by Byron L. Smith. Formerly associated with the Hide and Leather Bank and then the Merchants Savings, Loan and Trust Company, Smith left the banking industry in 1885 to devote more time to family business matters. Over the next four years, however, he was frequently called upon by relatives and friends for advice about planning estates and setting up trusts. As the demand from wealthy Chicagoans for his services increased, he decided in 1889 to open a new type of bank.
Because of the previously chaotic nature of banking throughout the United States, Chicago was ripe for a different kind of financial institution. During the nineteenth century the banking industry was unregulated; it lacked any centralized control over bank charters; and individual banks issued hundreds of different paper notes, which flooded the local area and were of questionable value. In 1887 the Illinois state legislature, sensing the potential danger, enacted banking laws that regulated state bank charters and the administration of trusts.
This is the predicament that led Smith to open the Northern Trust Company on August 12, 1889. In one room on the second floor of the Rookery Building, which still stands on the corner of Adams and LaSalle streets, a staff of six opened seven accounts and handled $137,981 of deposits during the first day's business. By the beginning of the new year, the bank had taken in over $1.5 million in deposits.
Smith provided 40 percent of the bank's original capitalization of $1 million, and counted such businessmen and civic leaders as Marshall Field, Martin A. Ryerson, and Philip D. Armour among the original 27 shareholders. Intimately acquainted with the operations of the bank, these men would personally examine Northern's assets and records at each year's end. On December 31st, they would assemble in the banking room, count all the bank's cash and securities, and greet the new year.
Northern became the first bank in Chicago to advertise its services, first by direct mail and then by ads in the daily newspaper and Chicago City Directory. Smith reasoned that spending significant amounts of cash on newspaper advertising and becoming the first bank in the city to hire an advertising agency would help build confidence in Northern's conservative approach to banking.
During the 1893 Columbian Exposition, held in Chicago to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the arrival of Columbus in the new world, Congress had authorized another Chicago bank to open a branch on the fairgrounds. The exposition had only been open for eight days when the bank failed, and Northern was asked to operate the branch. The exposure bolstered Northern's reputation and increased its international recognition. Despite the panic in the financial industry due to bank closures and industrial insolvencies across the United States in 1893, which, in turn, led to a general economic decline for several years, Northern's fortunes continued to improve. By 1895 deposits totaled $10.5 million.
Declaring its first dividend in July 1896, Northern began to grow rapidly. In 1906 the bank constructed its own building in the center of Chicago's financial district. The architecture of the bank received so much attention that its cornerstone was used to measure the height of all buildings in Chicago. Much fanfare also surrounded the fact that the banking offices were the first in Chicago equipped with "manufactured air," an ancestor of modern air conditioning, and that its telephone system was at the forefront of technology for the era.
The business climate began to change dramatically in the early years of the twentieth century, and Northern was forced to reassess some of its long-standing policies. Since its founding, the bank had only made collateral loans, but now aware that this policy stymied growth, the board of directors approved Northern's purchase of commercial paper in 1912. When the Federal Reserve System was created two years later, reducing the chance of the money panics that plagued the banking industry during the nineteenth century, Northern joined the system and began to provide unsecured lines of credit to its most reputable customers. Within a brief period of time, commercial banking become one of the most important sectors of Northern's business.
A new era was on the horizon when Byron L. Smith died in March 1914 and his son, Solomon A. Smith, took over the reins of the bank. World War I started in August 1914, and stock and bond prices dropped markedly, even though the dollar gained in value against European currencies. When the United States finally entered the war in 1917, Northern acted as a depository for the Alien Property Custodian Act and held over $500 million in enemy assets. During and immediately after the war, Northern sold nearly $30 million in war bonds for the Liberty Bond and Victory Bond campaigns.
Immediately after the war, the American economy muddled through a short period of inflation and slow growth. But by 1922 the "Roaring Twenties" was in full swing, a time when public confidence in the economy was at its highest, and throughout the nation investors were enticed into highly speculative markets. On October 23, 1929, however, the flamboyant decade of the 1920s came to a sudden halt--the stock market crash led to a spectacular drop in prices, employment and production. Banks were hit particularly hard. What had previously been regarded as sound loans could not be collected, and panicking depositors withdrew their funds from banks. As these troubles swept across the country, one bank after another closed.
By mid-1932 the American economy had reached its lowest point ever, and public confidence--especially in the banks--had all but faded away. Two days after his inauguration on March 6, 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt closed all the banks in the United States. When they reopened a short time later, there was a great deal of uncertainty as to what might occur. Fortunately, the people in line outside the Northern bank offices were there to deposit money instead of withdraw it. In fact, so much money was deposited during the first day that cash had to be stacked in huge piles on the floor.
Northern's conservative policies had served it well during the 1920s. Since it had refused to involve itself in highly dubious stock or bond speculations and had passed up the opportunity for rapid earnings growth, the Northern was able to pay its depositors their money whenever they wanted it. It was therefore no fluke northern trust company bank public confidence in the Northern ran high; more than 10,000 new accounts were opened at the bank in the early 1930s. In 1929 deposits amounted to $56 million; by 1935, deposits had soared to over $300 million. In 1929 there were 335 banks within Cook County; in 1935 there were only 95 left. The Northern Trust was one of the few banks in Chicago that survived the depression without the need for any government assistance.
Near the end of the depression, Northern started to expand its effort to solicit commercial business, particularly in the Midwest. By 1941 nearly half of all the bank's commercial accounts were drawn from outside the Chicago metropolitan area. During World War II, Northern once again took part in the government's war bond drives, and also provided loans for manufacturing war materials under special government programs. The war created more opportunities for the bank; all sectors of its business expanded, and by 1945 the Northern Trust had doubled in size.
The years after World War II brought even greater prosperity to the bank as it continued to expand its services. Still under the direction of Solomon Smith, management at the bank became more aware of electronic data processing and how this new technology would revolutionize the banking industry. During the 1950s, Northern was at the forefront of developing numerous automated banking services, including fully automated financial statements for trust clients, the very first in the industry.
When Solomon Smith died in 1963 and his son, Edward Byron Smith, assumed leadership of the bank, assets totaled more than $1 billion. Near the end of the decade, Northern became the first state-chartered bank from Illinois to open an office outside the United States. Illinois banking laws were revised in order to allow state-chartered banks to open offices abroad, yet strangely prohibited opening branches within the state. Northern's new London office helped expand the bank's services to European customers. The Northern Trust International Banking Corporation, a New York subsidiary created to handle currency transactions for financial institutions abroad, was also established the same year.
The 1970s ushered in dramatic changes not only for Northern Trust but for the banking industry as a whole. Deregulation had two far-reaching effects: First, financial institutions were allowed to pay their depositors interest rates that were competitive with other market rates. Consequently banks began to lose depositors to money market funds offering higher interest rates. Second, many corporations discovered that the commercial paper market was a cost-efficient method of borrowing short-term funds, and thus banks lost their most stable and most profitable earnings asset. As a result of these changes, Northern, like many other banks, was forced to search for new markets.
During the late 1960s, the creation of the Eurodollar market provided American banks with the opportunity to grant foreign loans at a much lower risk than what was ordinarily expected. In 1973 the availability of dollars skyrocketed when the OPEC oil cartel inflated its prices for a barrel of crude oil, and many nations that depended on OPEC oil watched helplessly as their dollar reserves were depleted. The United Nations and many world governments, in order to prevent less developed countries from becoming even poorer, encouraged banks to recycle what came to be known as "petrodollars," by granting loans to these countries. As speculation rose in financial circles as to the prospects of crude oil increasing to $100 a barrel, the more needy nations demanded more and more bank credit.
When oil prices dropped suddenly in the early 1980s, many South American nations realized they could not pay off their enormous bank loans. Northern suffered uncharacteristically high losses, but through aggressive and astute management, loan reserves, and write-offs, the bank was able to restore its asset quality.
In 1971 Northern acquired Security Trust Company, located in Miami, Florida. Additional trust operations were established in Palm Beach, Sarasota, and Naples. In 1982 Northern expanded its services in the state of Florida from trust operations to include a full range of financial services. In 1990 the bank administered trust assets worth over $5 billion in South Florida alone. In 1974 Northern established a trust operation in Arizona, and expanded in 1986 to include full financial services. In 1988 a trust subsidiary was created with offices in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Santa Barbara, California. In 1989 the acquisition of Concorde Bank in Dallas, Texas, provided Northern with access to business opportunities in one more state. By the end of 1993, the bank has plans for forty-three offices in five states.
The bank created a holding corporation in 1971, the Northern Trust Corporation, for the purpose of future expansion within the state of Illinois. In 1981, when the state finally permitted Illinois banks to acquire banks in Cook and the surrounding counties, Northern immediately took advantage of the law and acquired O'Hare International Bank in Park Ridge, First Security Bank in Oakbrook, and First National Bank of Lake Forest.
With offices in five states, Northern Trust provided many personal financial services, including investment management, securities custody, estate planning and administration, and tax preparation. The bank provided master trust and custody services to foundations, endowments, corporations, and pooled investments worldwide. Northern's cash management and commercial banking services were provided to corporations and financial institutions to help manage cash collections, control cash disbursements, and create information systems needed for the growing complexity of clients' needs.
When Edward Byron Smith retired in 1979, he was succeeded by E. Norman Staub, followed a few years later by Philip W. K. Sweet, and then by Weston Christopherson. When company veteran David W. Fox took over, he was only the seventh chief executive in the bank's existence. This stability, in both leadership and financial policy, enabled the Northern Trust to weather some difficult moments in its history and develop into one of the most trustworthy banks in the United States.
- Wholly owned subsidiary of Northern Trust Corporation
- Incorporated: 1889
- Employees: 5,798
- Assets: $10.5 billion
- SICs: 6021 National Commercial Banks
Further ReferenceFox, David W., The Northern Trust Company Celebrating 100 Years,Newcomen Society, 1989, pp. 1-26."Northern Trust Opts to Build, Not Buy," ABA Bank Journal,March 1990, pp. 54-55.
Northern Trust Co. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, NA, 582 F. Supp. 1380 (S.D.N.Y. 1984)
The CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, N.A., Defendant.
United States District Court, S.D. New York.
*1381 Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York City, for plaintiff; Michael Spencer, John Gleeson, New York City, of counsel.
Andrew S. O'Connor, New York City, for defendant; Laura Effel, Marianne Popiel, New York City, of counsel.
WYATT, District Judge.
This is the decision after a trial to the Court without a jury, no demand having been made for a jury.
The action was brought by The Northern Trust Company ("Northern"), an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business (banking) in Chicago. The defendant is The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. ("Chase"), a national banking association with its principal place of business (banking) in the City of New York. There is diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, Chase being deemed a citizen of New York for the purpose of suits by or against it (28 U.S.C. § 1348). The parties are agreed that New York law is to be applied.
The action was brought by reason of a check which was forged by an unknown person and which has caused Northern to be presently out-of-pocket $473,272.22. Northern is here seeking to recover this amount from Chase.
There is little, if any, dispute as to the facts. A stipulation sets out the principal facts. The trial transcript is somewhat confused, but the stipulation appears to have been received in evidence as Exhibit 1 (Tr. 31; "Tr." references are to pages of the trial transcript; the stipulation itself will be referred to as "Stip.").
The contest here, consequent on the fraud with forgery, is to determine which of two innocent banks is to bear the loss caused by the fraud. The conclusion is that, on balance, judgment must be for Chase.
At some time before October 20, 1979, an unknown person took without authority (stole) from the offices of Northern in Chicago a special form of check (referred to by the parties as an "official check form") and a sheet of Northern stationery. The check taken was in that form used by Northern when it wished as fiduciary to issue a check drawing on itself as, for example, in payment for securities bought by Northern for a trust account. A person unknown and unauthorized filled out the stolen official check form: the date was shown as "9-21-79"; the payee was shown as "Chase Bank International"; and the amount was shown as $473,272.22. The check form has a printed signature of Northern as drawer "As Fiduciary" with then a space for a manual signature for Northern over the words "Authorized Signature". An unknown person in this space forged the signature of Chester Dziewa, who was an employee of Northern authorized to sign checks of this safety 1st grow and go comfort cool has four "affiliated entities" (Stip., para 28) named "Chase Bank International (Chicago)", "Chase Bank International (Los Angeles)", "Chase Bank International (Miami)", *1382 and "Chase Bank International (Houston)", which are located only in the respective cities shown in their names. There is no separate entity known simply as "Chase Bank International".
A person unknown and unauthorized prepared a one-page letter on the stolen sheet of Northern stationery, and forged the signature to it of David W. Holman, a vice-president of Northern. This letter was dated October 11, 1979, was addressed to "Chase Manhattan Bank" in New York, and described itself as a "letter of direction". The letter requested that Chase "wire the enclosed funds in the amount of $473,272.22 to Mr. R.L. Fraise's account at the address listed below" and then listed an address, apparently that of the Amro Bank in Amsterdam ("Amro") (Stip., para 3).
Amro Bank had a correspondent account with Northern (Stip., para 50). Evidently Amro also had such an account with Chase. Northern also had such an account with Chase, but there is nothing in the record as to the state of the account at the relevant times.
On Saturday, October 20, 1979, the check and letter were received by Chase in New York; they had been "mailed to Chase Manhattan Bank in New York" (Stip., para 17).
On Monday, October 22, Chase credited the amount of the check to the account of Amro at Chase, advised Amro by "a telecommunications system" (presumably radio) that it had done so, and mailed to Amro a "statement copy of credit previously advised" (Stip., paras 21, 22, Ex. D). This is the manner in which Chase normally effects wire transfers to its correspondent banks (Stip., para 21). On the same day, October 22, Chase endorsed the check ("Chase Manhattan Bank") and forwarded it by air to Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago for presentment to Northern (Stip., para 24). Chase thus acted on the reasonable but mistaken belief that the forged check and letter were genuine; Chase carried out the presumed instructions of Northern contained in the forged letter.
On Tuesday, October 23, the check was presented to Northern in Chicago, presumably by the Federal Reserve Bank there, although the stipulation (para 37) states that "presentment" was made "by Chase". Although the check purported to be signed by Northern and drawn on it, Northern did not recognize that the check was forged, treated it as genuine and paid it. The stipulation does not detail the manner of payment sovereign bank business online banking login undoubtedly it was settled through the routine Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago clearing system. On the same date, October 23, the account of Chase at Federal Reserve Bank of New York was credited with the amount of the check on instructions of Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
On October 23, 1979, the account at Amro in the name of R.L. Fraise showed a credit balance of 24.45 Dutch florins (about $12). On October 24, 25, 26, and 27, there were four sizable withdrawals from the account aggregating 896,972.25 Dutch florins (about $448,660). It is evident that Amro permitted these withdrawals only because, having already in hand the telecommunication advice from Chase of the $473,272.22 credit for the R.L. Fraise account for the check supposedly drawn by Northern, it could use the credit at Chase to reimburse it for the R.L. Fraise account withdrawals. So it was that, on October 26, Amro credited the R.L. Fraise account with 946,176.13 Dutch florins, the Dutch florin equivalent of the Chase $473,272.22 credit to Amro of the forged Northern check. After the last of the withdrawals from the R.L. Fraise account at Amro on October 27, there was a credit balance in that account of 49,228.33 Dutch florins (Stip., para 26) (about $24,625). Nothing is shown as to who R.L. Fraise is, or where he is, but presumably he is one of the criminal conspirators or the name is fictitious and was used for purposes of the fraud. Thus, within a few days of the receipt by Chase of the forged check and letter, the avails of the forgeries (except for some salvage later to be noted) had been transferred beyond the possibility of recovery.
At the end of November or the beginning of December, 1979, Northern realized that *1383 it had not located a copy of the check here in suit (Northern normally kept a copy of checks it drew) nor any record of a transaction with which that check could be reconciled. Mr. Dziewa examined a microfilm of the check in mid-December but did not recognize the forgery of his signature. He examined the original check on December 26 or 27, 1979, and then determined (from ink color, among other things) that his purported signature on the check was a forgery.
By telephone on December 27 or 28, 1979, Northern notified Chase of "a possible problem relating to the check" (Stip., para 42).
On or about December 28, Chase advised Northern of the letter supposedly signed by Mr. Holman. Since Mr. Holman had no knowledge of any such letter, nor of the check, nor of the transaction, it was then beyond doubt that there had been a fraud. Northern advised Chase that the letter was a forgery and that there was an investigation of the check.
In the fullness of time, this action was commenced.
The principal claim pressed by Northern seems to be based on the theory of money had and received, as contained in the second cause of action.
The "money had and received" theory is that Northern paid Chase $473,272.22 "on or about October 23, 1979", that Chase had a duty to inquire of Northern "as owner of the funds Chase received, as to the proper disposition of those funds", and that Chase in violation of a duty to Northern made no inquiry of Northern but relied on a forged letter and paid out "on or about October 23, 1979" the $473,272.22 paid to it by Northern. The quotations are northern trust company bank the second cause of action in the complaint. The decision on which Northern principally relies (Memorandum, pp. 4-9) is Federal Ins. Co. v. Groveland State Bank, 37 N.Y.2d 252, 372 N.Y.S.2d 18, 333 N.E.2d 334 (1975) which was "an action for money had and received" (372 N.Y.S.2d at 19-20, medicare part b N.E.2d at 335-36).
There are initial difficulties with this theory. The check received by Chase was not drawn by Northern; it was a forgery and thus could not have imposed on Chase any duty to Northern. The Groveland case, where the check to the payee was genuine and authorized, is inapplicable to the facts here. Northern argues (Memorandum, p. 5) that all the cases "hold that the payee bank owes the drawer a duty to inquire as to the proper disposition of the funds". But Northern was not the drawer of the check; it did not draw the check. Its signature was forged. Had Northern, the drawee-drawer, refused to pay the forged check as it should have done, Chase would have had to bear the loss, not because it had violated a duty to Northern by failing to inquire but because it could have had no claim against Northern on a forged Northern signature to the check.
The "money had and received" theory of Northern is also based on a mistaken notion of the chronology. Northern seems to argue that when Chase credited Amro with the amount of the check, Chase was dealing with "the proceeds of a check" (Memorandum p. 11) paid by Northern, that is, that Chase was dealing with funds belonging to Northern. This is the timing averred in the complaint as shown above. The sequence of events shown on the record, however, is that Chase did not receive payment of the check from Northern until after Chase had made the transfer to Amro.
According to the stipulation of facts, the sequence of events was as follows:
a. October 20, Chase received by mail the check and letter (para 18);
b. October 22, Chase credited the account of Amro at Chase with the dollar amount of the check (paras 22, 23);
c. October 22, Chase forwarded the check "by air" to Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago for presentment to Northern (para 24);
d. October 22, 11:01 p.m., Chase transmitted by radio a message to Amro of the credit to Amro's account with *1384 the name and address of the beneficiary (para 22);
e. October 22, Chase mailed to Amro a "statement copy of previously advised credit" (para 23);
f. October 23, check was presented in Chicago to Northern "by Chase" for payment (para 37; so reads the stipulation, but the presentment must have been by Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago for Chase);
g. October 23, Northern "did not identify any discrepancy", accepted the check as genuine, did not return or otherwise dishonor the check, settled the item as paid, and Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago must have debited the account with it of Northern with the amount of the check (para 37);
h. October 23, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago instructed Federal Reserve Bank of New York to credit the account of Chase with the amount of the check and on October 23 Federal Reserve Bank of New York did so (para 25).
Thus, Northern paid Chase the amount of the check after Chase had already transferred its own funds to Amro (by a credit entry to the account of Amro at Chase).
Northern, when the forged check was presented to it for payment, could and should have returned the check unpaid by reason of the forgery; it was the signature of Northern itself that had been forged. Northern, however, did not return the check but paid it under the mistaken belief that it was genuine.
While the Groveland decision is of no value as to the duty of the payee of a forged check, it is of value as to the principle applicable to an action for money had and received. This principle is that to recover in such an action, it must be shown that it is against good conscience for the defendant to keep the money; the action is founded on equitable principles aimed at achieving justice (372 N.Y.S.2d at 21, 333 N.E.2d at 337).
On which side here do the equities lie?
Chase did not rely "on payment of the check [by Northern] in disbursing the funds" (Northern memorandum, p. 11); it paid its own funds to Amro (by credit entry to Amro) before the check was paid by Northern.
That Chase did not inquire of Northern when the check was received was no violation of any duty owed Northern. The check was in fact forged, not genuine, and the forged accompanying letter requested transfer of the funds in what would appear to be a normal course of business. The check was not, as in Groveland, a genuine one presented by an employee of the drawer asking for diversion of the funds to himself personally, a circumstance which should put a payee bank on notice that something may be amiss.
Northern does, however, point to a few things which, at least with hindsight, might have seemed suspicious.
The check was payable to "Chase Bank International" rather than to Chase Manhattan Bank; the check was dated September 21, the letter was dated October 11, and it was not until October 20, 1979 that they were received by Chase; Northern could have itself made a transfer to Amro and did not need to use Chase for the purpose.
But the transfer of funds by Chase to Amro did not cause the loss to Northern. What caused the loss to Northern was simply that, when presented as drawee with the forged northern trust company bank, Northern accepted the check as genuine and paid it. If, as Northern argues, Chase should have been suspicious, then Northern itself, the purported drawer and drawee of the check, should have been much more suspicious. Northern had readily available the supposed signer of the check. He was not asked to verify his signature before the check was paid, and did not do so. Northern had a practice to make "a register carbon copy" of every official check issued by it; the account number, check number, and amount were recorded in a "paid and outstanding" file on computer and microfilm; *1385 the register northern trust company bank copy was placed in a "check paying file" (Stip., para 14). There was no such register carbon copy for the forged check in suit, nor any computer nor any microfilm record of it. Northern thus could easily have determined, before paying the check on October 23, that the check had not been issued by it. As Mr. Dziewa, the supposed signer of the check, testified, this could have been done either "immediately" or "before the day is over" (Ex. 5, p. 26). No attempt was made by Northern to verify the signature or to see whether there was a register carbon copy or a computer or microfilm record of issuance of the original. Moreover, had Northern made an attempt to find the register carbon copy of the forged check on October 23, 1979, the absence of any such copy would at once have led to discovery of the fraud. Amro could have been alerted, and all, or a major part, of the loss from the R.L. Fraise account withdrawals might well have been prevented.
The equities on balance are with Chase.
Section 3-418 of the Uniform Commercial Code provides in relevant part that "payment or acceptance of any instrument is final in favor of a holder in due course ."
This section itself requires judgment for Chase.
Northern made payment of the check to Chase on October 23, 1979. It so alleges in its complaint (paras 7, 13) and the fact of payment is shown by the evidence.
Chase was payee and endorser of the check. The name of the payee was shown on the check as "Chase Bank International", but both parties treated this at the time as the equivalent of a designation of Chase as payee.
Chase is a holder in due course. "A payee may be a holder in due course." U.C.C. § 3-302(2)
Chase took the check for value, in good faith, and without notice of any defense the requirements specified in U.C.C. § 3-302(1).
The "value" given by Chase was the credit of the amount of the check to the account of Amro. This credit seems clearly to have been "an irrevocable commitment to a third person", which constitutes "value" as defined in U.C.C. § 3-303(c). Chase made itself liable to Amro on October 22, 1979, for the amount of the check and if Northern on October 23 had dishonored the check, Chase would have borne any loss caused by the forgery. It was in reliance on the credit by Chase that Amro permitted withdrawals to be made from the R.L. Fraise account.
If the credit to Amro by Chase ws not an "irrevocable commitment" when made on October 22, it certainly became "irrevocable" when Amro against that credit paid out in a few days all but a relatively small amount in the R.L. Fraise account (Stip., paras 26, 45).
Under U.C.C. § 4-208(1) (a) Chase acquired a security interest in the check or its proceeds "to the extent to which credit given for the item [was] withdrawn or applied." Such a security interest in an item constitutes value "[f]or purposes of determining [Chase's] status as a holder in due course". U.C.C. § 4-209.
Northern does not contest that Chase took the check for "value". Northern on different grounds does argue (Memorandum, p. 25) that Chase is not a holder in due course.
First, it says that Chase is not a holder because there was no endorsement to Chase. This is apparently based on the difference in names between Chase and "Chase Bank International". But the parties at the time treated the two names as, for all practical purposes, the same; for example, Northern paid the check to Chase with full knowledge that the named payee was "Chase Bank International".
Second, Northern says that Chase did not act in good faith because the name of the payee did not lead Chase to make inquiry. The evidence when taken as a whole, however, establishes that Chase acted in entire good faith and without notice of any fraud.
*1386 Finally, Northern says that Chase acted in bad faith because of the name of the payee. This seems but another way to repeat the argument that Chase was not in good faith, an argument which is not available in the face of a finding of fact that Chase acted in entire good faith.
Specifically with reference to the application of U.C.C. northern trust company bank 3-418 Northern argues that "while the final payment rule may apply to the payment of the check by Northern Trust, it does not apply to the transfer of the funds by Chase" (Memorandum, p. 23). This is said to be so because "Chase's credit to Amro was based on the letter, not the check, and thus falls outside the ambit of the final payment rule" (Memorandum, p. 23). This argument cannot be accepted.
Northern is here suing to recover the amount paid by it on an "instrument". That "instrument" was the check, not the letter. It was the check that was presented to and paid by Northern, and not the letter.
The final payment rule embodied in U.C.C. § 3-418 bars any recovery in this action by Northern.
The other causes of action averred by Northern deserve only brief comment.
The first cause of action is for conversion. The theory seems to be that after payment of the check on October 23, 1979, Northern "remained the owner" of the funds paid to Chase, that Northern has demanded their return, and that Chase has refused.
This theory is without any merit. When Northern paid the forged check to Chase, Northern did not remain the owner of any funds paid; it paid simply as the drawee of a check it believed to be genuine. It paid by settlement between banks; there was no specific money nor specific funds of which it could remain an owner. As counsel for Northern correctly state (Memorandum, p. 20): "[T]he check proceeds received by Chase from Northern Trust formed a general deposit of funds at Chase. .". But, unless there is a specific, identifiable fund, an action for conversion will not lie; a mere claim for moneys paid out by mistake will not support an action for conversion. Marine Midland Bank v. John E. Russo Produce Co., 65 A.D.2d 950, 410 N.Y.S.2d 730, 733 (4th Dep't 1978), modified on other grounds, 50 N.Y.2d 31, 405 N.E.2d 205, 427 N.Y.S.2d 961 (1980).
The third cause of action is for breach of warranty "on presentment" by Chase as endorser under U.C.C. §§ 3-417(1) (a) and 4-207(1) (a). The theory seems to be that Chase warranted that it had good title to the check whereas it did not have title because there was no endorsement to Chase from "Chase Bank International". This theory is without merit.
The final payment rule of U.C.C. § 3-418 is, by its terms, not applicable to breach of warranty "on presentment", which is the warranty described in U.C.C. § 3-417(1).
Chase, however, did have good title to the forged check presented.
The parties, as noted, consistently treated Chase at the time as the payee of the check, despite the slight technical difference in the name. An officer of Northern, expert in the field, testified by deposition that in his opinion the endorser and the payee bank were "the same" and "one and the same" (Ex. C-1, p. 18). Moreover, when a check is made payable to a person (which includes a bank) under a name other than his (or its) own, the endorsement may be made in the payee name or the proper name or both. To require endorsement in both names, demand by the payor is necessary. U.C.C. § 3-203. There was never any such demand by Northern.
The fourth cause of action is for breach of warranty "on . transfer" of genuine and authorized signatures. The theory seems to be that, under U.C.C. §§ 3-417(2) (b) and 4-207(2) (b), Chase warranted the signature of the drawer, which was forged, and its own signature as endorser, *1387 but that "Chase Bank International" was the payee and not Chase. This theory is without merit.
Northern concedes (Memorandum, p. 25) that the final payment rule would bar this cause of action, but contends that such rule is inapplicable because Chase northern trust company bank not a holder in due course. Having already found that Chase is a holder in due course, this cause of action is barred.
The fifth cause of action is for breach of warranty "on . transfer" of good title to the check and that the transfer to Northern was "otherwise rightful". The theory seems to be that, under U.C.C. § 3-417(2) (a), Chase warranted its title to the check but that the payee was "Chase Bank International" which did not endorse the check.
It appears that Northern does not mean to press this theory because no argument in its support is found in the papers submitted by Northern. In any event, the theory is without merit.
As already pointed out, the technical distinction between the names of Chase and of "Chase Bank International" would not, on the facts here, support a judgment for Northern on this cause of action. Moreover, having already found that Chase is a holder in due course, this cause of action is barred by the final payment rule of U.C.C. § 3-418.
The sixth cause of action is for negligence of Chase "in dealing with the forged letter of direction, the forged check and its proceeds" (complaint, para 38).
This cause of action is barred by the final payment rule of U.C.C. § 3-418. Northern is here trying to recover back moneys it paid as drawee of a forged check to Chase, the payee of that check. Whether or not Chase was negligent before presentment of the check to Northern, payment of the check, by the law of New York in U.C.C. § 3-418 "is final in favor of a holder in due course", as Chase has been found to be.
Aside from this rule, there is no merit to the cause of action. Before the payment by Northern, Chase could not have been negligent in relation to Northern because the check was forged, Northern had no possible liability on the check, and Chase owed no duty to Northern.
After the payment by Northern, Chase acted reasonably and prudently and could not possibly be found negligent. The payment by Northern on October 23, 1979, was an authentication of the check and of the transaction. When Northern paid the check without question, Chase could reasonably assume that the check was genuine and authorized by Northern. It was not until December 28, 1979 more than two months later that Chase was notified by Northern that the check was a forgery. By December 28, 1979, the loss from the forgery had already occurred. The discovery by Northern of the forgery, and its notice to Chase, were too late to prevent loss.
The foregoing contains the findings of fact and conclusions of law required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a).
There will be judgment in favor of Chase. The judgment should include a direction that Chase pay over to Northern $100,129.21, made up of the sums of $81,559.77 and $18,569.44 recovered by Chase as salvage after discovery of the fraud. See Stipulation, para 45. The parties will probably be able to agree on a form of judgment. Should this not be possible, the judgment will be settled on notice.
Counterfeit Cashier's Checks: Counterfeit Cashier’s Checks of Northern Trust Bank of California, N.A., Los Angeles, CA
The above-named bank has reported that counterfeit cashier’s checks, issued in the bank’s name and using a correct routing number of 122242173, are being presented for payment. The counterfeit checks differ from the authentic checks.
The counterfeit checks may be identified by the following: a standard check stock, which includes a logo foreclosed homes for sale tulsa an anchor enclosed in a shaded rectangular box in the top-center portion of the check. The bank’s full name is printed in the top-left portion of the check followed by the words “Los Angeles Office www.northerntrust.com.” Appearing directly below the Website address is the bank’s actual logo of an anchor and rope enclosed in a circle with the words “Northern Trust” appearing to the right, and the words “Cashier’s Check” appearing in the bottom-left portion of the check. There are several similarities with the counterfeit items. Most counterfeit items are light green in color, dated December 29, 2005, made out in the amount of $3,800, include a Remitter name of Frederick Waweru, and use a 6-digit serial number in the 880000 series. Some of the items include a security statement in the top border of the check; others do not.
Authentic cashier’s checks issued by the bank are: white in color with fine green lines, include a green border around the entire item and contain a security watermark. The bank’s anchor logo (anchor with rope enclosed in a circle) appears in the top-center portion of the check and is enclosed in a shaded box with rounded corners. The bank’s full name is printed in the top-left portion of the check followed by the words “Los Angeles Office www.northerntrust.com.” Appearing directly below the Website address is a smaller version of the bank’s anchor logo with the words “Northern Trust” appearing to the right. The words “Cashier’s Check” appear in the bottom-left portion of the check.
You can verify the authenticity of Northern Trust Bank of California, N.A.’s cashier’s checks by contacting Susan Turay, 2nd vice president, at 355 S. Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90071, by telephone at (602) 468-2582, by fax at (602) 912-8696 or via email at [[email protected]]. In addition, Cheryl Dodge, vice president, may be contacted at (805) 884-4303.
Additional information concerning this matter that you believe should be brought to the attention of the OCC may be forwarded to:
Email: [email protected]
Mail: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Enforcement & Compliance Division, MS 8-10
250 E Street, SW, Washington, DC 20219
Fax: (202) 874-5301
For additional information regarding other types of financial fraud, please visit the OCC's anti-fraud resource page.
Brian C. McCormally
Director for Enforcement & Compliance
Fidelity International Usage Agreement
You are visiting Fidelity.com from outside of the United States and you must accept the International Usage Agreement before you can proceed.
I DeclineShow me international options
I AcceptContinue to Fidelity.com
First United Bank
We offer account options with features designed for the way you live.START HERE
By getting to know you, we can build the right mortgage based on your needs.START HERE
Spend Life Wisely
We’re here to change the world, one customer, one family, one community at a time.START HERE
Your Journey to Financial Well-Being.
The path to financial security and comfort for you and your family is a journey of small steps. Do you know where you are on the path? Are you taking the right steps to get where you want to be? Let us help you find your place on the path and empower you with the resources and tools you need to keep moving forward.
Steps and stages for individuals and families.
Begin your journey on strong financial footing with these important early steps.
The strategies you need to move forward and set yourself up for long term success.
Are you on track to hit your goals? Employ these strategies to help make it happen.
You’ve worked hard to get here. Make sure your money works just as hard to keep you here.
Evaluate your position and create a legacy that lasts.
A map through the stages of healthy business growth.
Laying the groundwork and building the structure of a thriving future company.
Essential early steps in planning and finance to set your new business up for success from day one.
Strategies for employee and customer happiness to ensure healthy growth and a vibrant workplace.
Sharpen practices and streamline operations in preparation for future expansion.
Reap the rewards of smart planning and execution as your business continues its ascent.
You’re one of a kind. Let’s keep it that way.
Identity theft is on the rise. Secure Checking* with IDProtect® includes powerful built-in security tools that help better protect you and your entire family1. Open your secure account today in just 5 minutes.
- Online and Mobile Banking
- Identity Monitoring4
- Credit File Monitoring3,4
- Comprehensive Identity Theft Resolution Services
- Coverage for You and Your Entire Family
- 3-in-1 Credit Report4
- Identity Theft Expense Reimbursement Coverage2
Secure your identity, and your family.Get Started
Spend Life Wisely
Spending Life Wisely means taking small steps towards a life of love and impact. And we’re here to inspire and empower you along the way with information that educates, empowers, and inspires each person to reach their highest purpose and realize their greatest success.
northern trust company bank Faith
Treasure your faith.
Allow God to guide your heart to a life of meaning and purpose, putting Him at the center of everything you do, inspiring you to serve others with love and compassion.
Care for your money.
Be intentional with both your saving and spending to make the most of what you are given, gaining financial peace of mind to support yourself and those you love.
Invest in your wellness.
Care for your physical, mental, and spiritual health in order to be at your best for yourself and others, living each day to its fullest.
Enrich your mind.
Never stop learning and growing so that you may realize your fullest potential, live your purpose, and achieve your greatest success.
How may we help you along your journey?Contact Us
* Monthly service charge of $6.95. $100 minimum opening deposit required.
1 Benefits are available to personal checking account owner(s), their joint account owners and their eligible family members subject to the terms and conditions for the applicable Benefits. Some Benefits require authentication, registration and/or activation. Benefits are not available to a “signer” on the account who is not an account owner or to businesses, clubs, trusts, organizations and/or churches and their members, or schools and their employees/students. Family Members include your spouse, persons qualifying as domestic partner, and children under 25 years of age and parent(s) of the account holder who are residents of the same household.
2 Special Program Notes: The descriptions herein are summaries only and do not include all terms, conditions, and exclusions of the Benefits described. Please refer to the actual Guide to Benefit and/or insurance documents for complete details of coverage and exclusions. Coverage is offered through the company named in the Guide to Benefit or on the certificate of insurance. Insurance products are not insured by FDIC or any Federal Government Agency; not a deposit of or guaranteed by the bank or any bank affiliate.
3 Credit file monitoring may take several days to begin following activation.
4 Registration/Activation Required
Warning: You Are Leaving This Site.
You are about to follow a link to [Link]. To proceed, click 'continue' below. To remain on this site, click 'cancel' below.
Just so you know … By following this link, you will leave our website and go to the website of one of our affiliates. If you agree, click "Continue" to proceed. Rather not? Simply click "Go Back" to remain on cbna.com.
If you click "continue," the link will attempt to open a new browser window. If it can’t, the new site will open in the current window.
You should know Community Bank, N.A. has no control over the information at any site that’s linked to or from this site. We are providing this link only as a convenience to our customers. Community Bank, N.A. makes no representation concerning these sites and is not responsible northern trust company bank the quality, content, nature or reliability of any site linked to or from our site. The presence of any links on our site does not imply any endorsement, investigation, verification or monitoring by Community Bank, N.A. of any information on any linked site and we are not responsible for your use of a linked site.
If you click "Continue," the link will attempt to open a new browser window. If it can’t, the linked site will open in your current window.