
    Ivan Vasilevich Klochkov, Appellant, v. Petrogradski Mejdunarodni Commercheski Bank, Also Known as Banque Internationale de Commerce de Petrograd, Respondent.
    First Department,
    January 19, 1934.
    
      
      Borris M. Komar, for the appellant.
    
      Paul C. Whipp of counsel [Lounsbury D. Bates with him on the brief; Campbell & Whipp, attorneys], for the respondent.
   Finch, P. J.

In March, 1919, plaintiff opened a current checking account with defendant’s Vladivostok branch, and between March and December, 1919, he deposited to the credit of such account 864,000 rubles in the currency then in circulation in Vladivostok. This action was brought to recover the value of such rubles, the complaint alleging a demand and refusal on April 15, 1924. The trial court found that the plaintiff had withdrawn all but 1,510 rubles of the type deposited. At that time the Romanoff and Kerensky rubles, in which the deposit was originally made, had become worthless. Nowhere in the record is there anything to show that the old obligations were to be payable in gold currency, ruble for ruble. That there is a distinction between currencies redeemable in gold and currencies not so redeemable is well recognized.

The judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

Townley and Glennon, JJ., concur; Merrell and Untermyer J.T., dissent and vote for modification.

Untermyer, J.

(dissenting). Under controlling decisions in this State (Matter of People [First Russian Ins. Co.], 255 N. Y. 428; Parker v. Hoppe, 257 id. 333; Dougherty v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U. S., 144 Misc. 363; affd., 238 App. Div. 696), the plaintiff was entitled to recover the value of 1,510 rubles remaining on deposit with the defendant bank as of March 17, 1930, the date of the commencement of the action. Concededly that value was fifty-one and four-tenths cents per ruble.

The judgment so far as appealed from should be modified by increasing the amount to $776.14, with interest from March 17, 1930, and the said judgment as so modified, and the order appealed from, should be affirmed, with costs to the appellant.

Merrell, J., concurs.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.  