
    Stevens v. Market Street Title & Trust Company, Appellant.
    
      Banks and banking — Dishonor of check — Damages—Subsia/ntial damages.
    
    Where a bank, without right, refuses to pay the check of its depositor merely nominal damages are inadequate to heal the injury, and substantial damages may and should be awarded; and this is the case although the mistake of the bank was an innocent one, and the depositor was not in business, and showed no injury to her credit.
    
      Argued Oct. 17, 191G.
    Appeal, No. 139, Oct. T., 1916, by defendant, from judgment of Municipal Court, Philadelphia Co., Jan. T., 1916, No. 259, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Louise D. Stevens v. Market Street Title & Trust Company.
    Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Head, Kephart, Trexler and Williams, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Trespass for dishonoring checks. Before Knowles, J.
    At the trial it appeared that plaintiff whose name was Louise D. Stevens deposited with the defendant $60 which by a clerical error was credited to the account of one, “Louis G. Stevens.” Subsequently she drew three checks for $5 each, all of which Avere returned by the defendant marked “not sufficient funds.” A letter of apology written by defendant to the plaintiff was shown by her to the payees of the checks.
    The court charged in part as follows:
    In this case it appears that this lady was not in any business, and it appears that the first letter from the plaintiff calling the attention of the defendant to the nonpayment of one check, was Avritten Avithout date, and that there was a letter written by the bank to the plaintiff, which has been termed a “letter of apology,” under date of November 8,1915, and that letter was again answered by the plaintiff in this case in a second letter, without date, all of which letters have been offered in evidence; but [it becomes my duty to instruct you to award to the plaintiff in this case substantial damages considering all of the circumstances]. (2) The court cannot suggest to you any amount but you are by your verdict to do substantial justice between the plaintiff and the defendant, considering all the circumstances of the case, and the amount of your verdict is entirely within your own good judgment.
    Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $300. Defendant appealed.
    
      December 18, 1916:
    
      Errors assigned was portion of charge as above quoting it.
    
      Robert Mair, with him Wayne P. Rambo and Ormond Rambo, for appellant.
    
      Joseph V. Somers, for appellee.
   Opinion by

Head, J.,

Every important question raised by the assignments of error in this appeal has been considered and disposed of in the case of Weiner v. North Penn Bank, 65 Pa. Superior Ct. 290. For the reasons there fully stated .we must decline to interfere with the judgment entered by the cpurt below although it would seem as if the bank’s innocent mistake had considerably improved the plaintiff’s financial condition. The assignments of error' are overruled.

Judgment affirmed.  