Beardsley v. Webber

• Decision Date: 12 February 1895
• Citation: 104 Mich. 88,62 N.W. 173
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: BEARDSLEY v. WEBBER ET AL.

62 N.W. 173

104 Mich. 88

BEARDSLEY v. WEBBER ET AL.

Supreme Court of Michigan

February 12, 1895

Error to circuit court, Kent county; William E. Grove, Judge.

Action by George F. Beardsley against Oscar Webber and Clarence W Chapin, bankers, to recover on a certificate of deposit. From a verdict for plaintiff, defendants bring error. Modified.

Wm. O Webster, for appellants.

T. J O'Brien and James H. Campbell, for appellee.

GRANT J.

Defendants were bankers. Plaintiff deposited with them $8,000, for which he received the following certificate: "Stanton, Mich Oct. 26, 1892. G. F. Beardsley has deposited in this bank $8,000 (eight thousand dollars), payable to the order of himself on the return of this certificate properly indorsed. Interest at 6 per cent. if left 12 months for all full months. Interest to case if not renewed at end of one year from date." July 26, 1893, the bank closed its doors, having previously suspended payment. Plaintiff testified that he presented the certificate and demanded payment before bringing suit, which was instituted July 26, 1893. The defendants denied that the certificate was presented and payment demanded. They, however, admit that they could not pay it; that plaintiff had a conversation with them in regard to its payment; and that they then offered to pay it by turning out other paper. The court directed a verdict for plaintiff for the amount of the certificate and interest from its date.

The defendants contend that the instruction was erroneous, because the presentation of the certificate, properly indorsed, and demand, were necessary before suit. We need not refer to the holdings of other courts. This court has held that such a certificate of deposit is a promissory note, payable on demand. Cate v. Patterson, 25 Mich. 191; Tripp v. Curtenius, 36 Mich. 494; Birch v. Fisher, 51 Micl. 39, 16 N.W. 220. No demand is necessary on a demand note as against the maker. The institution of a suit is a sufficient demand. 3 Rand. Com. Paper, � 1070; Story, Prom. Notes, � 29. The authorities on this point will be found cited in notes to the above sections. It follows that the court was correct in instructing the jury that no specific demand was necessary before the suit, and in directing a verdict for plaintiff.

We think, however, the court erred in allowing interest from the date of the certificate. It was the express agreement that interest should not be allowed...