Bickford v. the First Nat'l Bank of Chicago.
| Decision Date | 30 April 1866 |
| Citation | 89 Am.Dec. 436,1866 WL 4672,42 Ill. 238 |
| Parties | RUSSELL K. BICKFORDv.THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon E. S. WILLIAMS, Judge, presiding.
This was an action of assumpsit brought in the court below by the First National Bank of Chicago against Russell K. Bickford, as the drawer of a certified check, which was protested for non-payment, and due notice given. A trial resulted in a finding and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed.
The opinion contains a sufficient statement of the case.
Messrs. RUNYAN & AVERY, for the appellant.
Messrs. FULLER & SHEPARD, for the appellee. Mr. JUSTICE BREESE delivered the opinion of the Court:
This was an action of assumpsit brought in the Circuit Court of Cook county, by the First National bank of Chicago against Russell K. Bickford, on a check drawn by him on the banking house of J. G. Conrad, and certified by the teller of that house as “good.”
The check was drawn and certified and deposited in the First National bank, after ten o'clock A. M., and before three o'clock P. M., of the 29th day of September, 1864, for the benefit of one Beardsley. On the same day the First National bank wrote the bank of Manitowoc, that their account had credit by Beardsley, $1,547 51/100. The check was placed in the drawer where the bank kept its currency, and remained there until the next morning, when it was taken in the usual course of business to Conrad's bank for payment. The bank was then closed and did not open its doors for business on that day, nor has it since. The check was protested for non-payment, and due notice given to the parties interested.
This suit is brought to recover the amount of the check of the drawer, and the question is fairly presented, whether the receipt of a certified check is of itself payment, or whether a check, upon being certified, ceases to be commercial paper and becomes money.
This a very interesting question, and one on which able argument has been expended on both sides.
We will consider, first, what is the effect of the acceptance of an uncertified check to discharge an indebtedness? next, the difference in this regard between a certified and an uncertified check; and, last, is the liability of the drawer of a check of either description fixed by protest and notice of non-payment by the drawee?
It is, by the universal consent of the commercial world, the contract between a depositor and his banker, that the banker when he receives the deposit shall pay it out on the presentation of the depositor's checks, in such sums as those checks may call for, and to the person presenting them; and he agrees, with the whole world, that whoever shall become the owner of such check shall, upon its presentation, thereby become the owner, and entitled to receive the amount specified in such check, provided the drawer shall at that time have that amount on deposit.
The check of a depositor upon his banker, delivered to another for value, transfers to that other the title to so much of the deposit as the check calls for, which may be again transferred by delivery, and, when presented at the bank, the banker becomes the holder of the money to the use of the owner of the check, and is bound to account to him for that amount, provided the party drawing the check has funds to that amount on deposit, subject to his check, at the time it is presented. Munn et al. v. Burch et al., 25 Ill. 40. These checks are received, and passed, and deposited with the banker as cash, subject, of course, to be made good if not paid on presentation. Id. 39. This is the legal effect of an ordinary uncertified check.
Does a certified check do more? What peculiar virtue does the certificate ““good” bestow upon the check? Does it, should it, amount to any thing more than an acknowledgment, by the bank on which it is drawn, that the drawer has funds on deposit to meet it, and which the bank will pay over to the holder of the check upon its presentation? Is it any thing more on the part of the bank than its guaranty that the check is drawn in good faith, and will be paid on presentation, and, on the part of the drawer passing a check so certified, he is enabled to assure the public, or those with whom he is dealing, that every thing has been done which the law implies from the fact of drawing the check, namely, that he has funds in the bank sufficient in amount to pay the check? All this is presumed with regard to an uncertified check. There may be said to be this difference between a certified and an uncertified check: In the former description, the amount of the check is supposed to be at once charged up against the drawer, so that he can no longer control the fund on which it is drawn, or rather so much of it as is specified in the check. After being so charged, it is no longer his money but the money of the holder of the check. It is not so with an uncertified check. A party having $1,000 on deposit with a bank, may give A a check for the amount, and, before A presents it, he may be anticipated by B who has also a check for the amount on which he has drawn the money. One effect, then, of a certified check, is to inspire confidence that it is drawn on an existing fund in good faith, and is no longer under the control of the drawer, the supposition being, that it has been charged by the bank against the drawer in his account as paid, which, however, was not done in the case before us.
Bank checks, whether certified or not, rest a good deal upon the principles of the law of negotiable paper. Some eminent jurists of this country have considered them as a species of inland bills of exchange, and they are so considered in England. COWEN, J., in Harker v. Anderson, 21 Wend. 372, says, a check is a bill of exchange, payable on demand, that bill is the genus, and check is a species. RADCLIFFE, J., in Conger v. Armstrong, 3 Johns. Cases, 5, says a check possesses all the requisites of a bill; and KENT, J., in the same case, said, checks are substantially the same as inland bills, and are negotiable, like inland bills payable to bearer; and again he says, a check has all the requisites of a bill of exchange. Id. 8. The drawer is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dille v. White
...560, 9 L. R. A. 263, 20 Am. St. Rep. 566;Born v. Bank, 123 Ind. 78, 24 N. E. 173, 7 L. R. A. 442, 18 Am. St. Rep. 312;Bickford v. Bank, 42 Ill. 238, 89 Am. Dec. 436;Good v. Singleton, 39 Minn. 340, 40 N. W. 359. Payment by check is said in these and numerous other authorities to be conditio......
-
Dille v. White
...560, 9 L. R. A. 263, 20 Am. St. Rep. 566); Born v. Bank, 123 Ind. 78 (24 N.E. 173, 7 L. R. A. 442, 18 Am. St. Rep. 312); Bickford v. Bank, 42 Ill. 238 (89 Am. Dec. 436); Good v. Singleton, 39 Minn. 340 (40 N.W. Payment by check is said in these and numerous other authorities to be condition......
-
Cuesta, Rey & Co. v. Newsom
...these important securities only a snare and delusion.' In support of the rule, the following authorities are cited: Bickford v. Nat. Bank, 42 Ill. 238, 89 Am. Dec. 436; Willets v. Phoenix Bk., 9 N.Y. Super. Ct. (2 121; Barnet v. Smith, 10 Fost. (30 N. H.) 256, 64 Am. Dec. 290; Meads v. Merc......
-
Welge v. Batty
... ... 350.Payment to a cashier is payment to the bank: Ryan v. Dunlop, 17 Ill. 40; Ralston v. Wood, 15 Ill. 159.A ... Bank v. City Nat. Bank, 68 Ill. 398; Bickford v. First Nat. Bank, 41 Ill. 238.Payments made to an agent, ... ...