102 U.S. 658 (1881), White v. Miners' Nat. Bank

Citation:102 U.S. 658, 26 L.Ed. 250
Party Name:WHITE v. NATIONAL BANK.
Case Date:January 17, 1881
Court:United States Supreme Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 658

102 U.S. 658 (1881)

26 L.Ed. 250

WHITE

v.

NATIONAL BANK.

United States Supreme Court.

January 17, 1881

OPINION

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

COUNSEL

Mr. S. V. White for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. Henry M. Teller, contra.

MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action by White, who was plaintiff below, for the sum of $60,000, against the Miner's National Bank of

Page 659

Georgetown, Colorado. The declaration contains twelve special counts, upon as many drafts, drawn by the Stewart Silver Reducing Company on Thomas W. Phelps, payable in the city of New York to the order of the defendant, and indorsed by J. L. Brownell, its president, to S. V. White, and duly protested for non-payment.

To these counts is added another, in this language: 'And for that also, heretofore, to wit, on the first day of April, A.D. 1876, at the said county of Clear Creek, the said defendant was indebted to plaintiff in $60,000, for so much money by the plaintiff, before that time, paid to the use of said defendant at its request, which said sum of money was to be paid to the plaintiff on request,' with an allegation of request and refusal.

To this declaration the defendant pleaded the general issue and several special pleas, which it is unnecessary to notice.

The case was tried by a jury. The plaintiff recovered $15,000 debt and $2,625 damages for interest, on account of three of the drafts. His claim on the other drafts, and for money paid at defendant's request, was rejected. He, therefore, brings this writ, and assigns for error the rulings of the court in the progress of the trial, which are set forth in a bill of exceptions.

J. L. Brownell, a partner in the firm of J. L. Brownell & Brother, doing business as bankers and brokers in the city of New York, was also president of the defendant, and interested in the Stewart Silver Reducing Company during the time of the transactions involved in this suit. As such president, he sold or transferred the several drafts on which this suit is founded to White, and received of the latter for the use of the bank the amount of said drafts less the discount. They were not paid at maturity, but due demand, protest, and notice were made. Those on which plaintiff recovered need not be further noticed. The others were rejected by the court as evidence against the defendant, on account of the form of the indorsement.

As they were, in this respect, alike, the form of one will be given here as a specimen of the whole:----

Page 660

...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP