Parkhurst v. Citizens National Bank

Robinson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This suit is brought under the Procedure Act of 1864, chap. 6, passed for the purpose of despatching business in ²⁵⁷ the Superior Court and the Court oí Common Fleas of Baltimore City. The Act provides, the plaintiff must at the time of bringing the suit, file with the declaration an affidavit, stating the true amount due by the defendant, and must also file at the same time, the bond, bill of exchange, promissory note, or other writing, or account, by which the defendant is so indebted. The plaintiff in this case, is a National Bank, and the question is, whether the cashier is the proper officer to make the affidavit?

The right of the plaintiff to sue under the Act, was not and indeed could not be disputed. If so, the affidavit must be made by one of its officers or agents; and considering the duties and powers of a cashier, he is the proper person to make it. * To him is submitted the funds of the Bank, and through him, as the executive officer, its financial operations are mainly conducted. He has the means of knowing the dealings between the Bank and its debtors, and it is his duty to superintend the collection of debts due to the Bank, and to make such arrangements as may facilitate that object, and to do anything in relation thereto, that an attorney may lawfully do. If an affidavit is to be made, stating the precise sum due by a debtor to the Bank, ho is the proper officer to make it.

Trenton Bank vs. Haverstick, 6 Halsted, 172; Mix vs. Andes Ins. Co., 74 N. Y., 55 ; Shaft vs. Phœnix Mutual Life Ins. Co., 67 N. Y., 549 ; Angell & Ames on Corp., secs. 299, 366. There was no error, therefore, on the part of the Court in refusing to strike out the judgment in this case on this ground.

The next question, is whether the Court had the power to correct the docket entries? The original entries made by the clerk are “Harr., copy of promissory note, affidavit and notice to plead, &c.” By the entries thus made, it is contended, that the plaintiff at the time of bringing ²⁵⁸ the suit, filed a copy of the promissory note, and not the note itself as required by the Act. But the affidavit of the writ clerk shows beyond question, that the entry “copy of promissory note,” was