Brahm v. John P. Adkins.
| Decision Date | 31 January 1875 |
| Citation | 77 Ill. 263,1875 WL 8300 |
| Parties | JOHN A. BRAHM et al.v.JOHN P. ADKINS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Menard county; the Hon. LYMAN LACEY, Judge, presiding.
This was an action of assumpsit, by John P. Adkins against John A. Brahm and William G. Greene, bankers, to recover the amount of a certain deposit.
On the trial the plaintiff offered in evidence a paper, or memorandum, which is as follows:
“BRAHM & GREENE, BANKERS.
PETERSBURG, ILL., May 12 th, 1873.
Deposited by John P. Adkins:
+--------------------------+
¦Rup & G. on track ¦$825.00¦
+------------------+-------¦
¦Rup & G. on track ¦169.65 ¦
+------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦$994.65¦
+------------------+-------¦
¦Off ¦194.65 ¦
+------------------+-------¦
¦ ¦$800.00¦
+--------------------------+
BRAHM & GREENE, per Z.”
Mr. EDWARD LANNING, and Mr. T. W. MCNEELEY, for the appellants.
Messrs. WHITNEY & HOAGLAND, for the appellee.
This was an action of assumpsit, in the Menard circuit court, by appellee against appellants, to recover of the latter, as bankers, a balance of an amount deposited by appellee with them.
Upon the trial, on general issue pleaded, the plaintiff gave in evidence a mere written memorandum, showing the several amounts deposited with defendants, as bankers. There was no evidence of any demand. The plaintiff recovered. The defendants tendered a bill of exceptions, showing that the above was all the evidence, and appealed to this court.
The paper introduced in evidence showed merely the fact that defendants were bankers, a deposit with them by plaintiff, and the amount thereof. It was prima facie a general deposit. A deposit is general unless the depositor makes it special, or deposits it expressly in some particular capacity. Keene v. Collier, 1 Metc. (Ky.) 415; In the matter of Franklin Bank, 1 Paige, 249. This, then, upon plaintiff's own showing, was the ordinary case of a deposit of money with bankers, and there was an implied undertaking on their part to restore, not the same funds, but an equivalent sum, whenever it should be demanded. Story on Bailments, sec. 88; Marine Bank v. Rushmore, 28 Ill. 463; Boyden v. Bank of Cape Fear, 65 N. C. 13.
Unless circumstances are shown which amount to a legal excuse, a previous demand by the depositor, or some other person by his order, is indispensable to the maintenance of an action for such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First Nat. Bank v. C. Bunting & Co.
... ... 88; Ruffin v. Board of County Commrs., 69 N.C. 498, ... 509; Brahm v. Adkins, 77 Ill. 263; Keene v ... Collier, 1 Met. (Ky.) 415; Multnomah County v ... Bank, 61 ... ...
-
State v. Thum
...secs. 7098, 7101; Story on Bailments, Bennett's ed., sec. 88; Ruffin v. Board Co. Commrs., 69 N.C. 498, 509; Brahm v. Adkins, 77 Ill. 263; Keene v. Collier, 1 Met. (Ky.) 415). The addition of Storer's official title does not affect the character of the deposit nor change his relation to the......
-
Meadowcroft v. People
... ... of Meadowcroft Bros., corruptly, willfully, fraudulently, and feloniously did receive from one John D. Collins 100 current United States of America treasury notes, etc., of the value of, etc., of the ... Ward v. Johnson, 95 Ill. 215;Brahm v. Adkins, 77 Ill. 263. It is urged that the indictment is defective because it does not charge ... ...
-
Terre Haute & I.R. Co. v. State ex rel. Ketcham
... ... From a decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed. [65 N.E. 402] John G. Williams, Samuel O. Pickens, and Lawrence Maxwell, Jr., for appellant. Wm. A. Ketcham, Atty ... Bank of British North America v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 91 N. Y. 106;Brahm v. Adkins, 77 Ill. 263. For the recovery of dividends declared by corporations. 2 Morse, Banks, ... ...