Brown v. Leckie
| Decision Date | 30 April 1867 |
| Citation | 1867 WL 5079,43 Ill. 497 |
| Parties | JOHN S. BROWNv.ARCHIBALD C. LECKIE et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Chicago; the Hon. JOSEPH E. GARY, Judge, presiding.
This was an action of assumpsit brought by Archibald Leckie, George H. Sellers and William A. Leckie, partners, under the name and style of Leckie, Sellers & Co., in the Superior Court of Chicago, against John S. Brown, to recover the amount of a check for $3,380.24, drawn by defendant, in favor of plaintiffs, on Solomon Sturgis' Sons.
The declaration contained two special counts on the check, and the common counts. Defendant pleaded the general issue.
The cause was tried before the court and a jury, at the December Term, 1866. After hearing the evidence, the jury found a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for 3,474.80. Defendant thereupon entered a motion for a new trial, which was overruled by the court, and judgment was rendered upon the verdict; and he brings the case to this court by appeal. He assigns errors: that the verdict is against the law and the evidence; that the court erred in excluding evidence, in overruling the motion for a new trial, and in rendering judgment.
Messrs. WALKER & DEXTER, for the appellant.
Mr. O. B. SANSUM, for the appellees. Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court:
This was an action brought by appellees in the Superior Court of Chicago, against appellant, on this check:
“CHICAGO, July 7, 1866.
SOLOMON STURGIS' SONS:
Pay to Leckie, Sellers & Co., thirty-three hundred, eighty and 24-100 dollars.
+------------------------------+
¦$3,380.24.¦J. S. BROWN & CO.” ¦
+------------------------------+
It was certified across its face, “Good, S. Sturgis' Sons.” It appeared on the trial, that about the date of the check, appellees sold to appellant a quantity of high-wines, and in payment thereof he gave this check, certified as good, by the drawees. A short time subsequently, appellees presented the check for payment, which Solomon Sturgis' Sons refused to make in money, but offered to place it to their credit, who were at the time indebted to them, as they claimed.
This appellees refused to allow, and demanded the money on the check. They thereupon returned the check to appellant, and demanded the money or another check, which was refused.
Before the check was received by appellees, and at the time it was certified to be good, the amount called for in the check was charged to appellant's account with Solomon Sturgis' Sons.
On the trial, appellant offered to prove that when the check was presented to Solomon Sturgis' Sons, appellees were indebted to them in a sum larger than the amount of the check, and that they, as drawees, offered to credit the check upon appellees' account. But the court below refused to permit him to introduce such evidence, to which appellant excepted. The jury found a verdict in favor of appellees, for the amount of the check and interest. No question is made, in this case, as to the presentment and notice of non-payment; and these questions do not arise on this record. We will therefore proceed to the consideration of those which are presented.
In the cases of Rounds v. Smith, and Bickford v. The First National Bank, 42 Ill. 238, the question was presented as to the effect of certifying a check ““good.” It was held, that its only effect was to give it additional currency, by carrying with it the evidence that it was drawn in good faith, on funds to meet its payment, and lending to it the credit of the drawee, in addition to the credit of the drawer. That beyond this, it did not differ from an uncertified check. In those cases, however, the amount of the check was not charged up to the drawer. In that respect, this case differs from those.
In those cases, it was held, as it had been in the case of Munn v. Burch, 25 Ill. 35, that when a depositor draws his check on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson-Brinkman Commission Company v. Central Bank of Kansas City
...... well settled law, there is no question. 2 Parsons on. Contracts [7 Ed.], 624; Woodburn v. Woodburn , 115. Ill. 427, 5 N.E. 82; Brown v. Leckie , 43 Ill. 497;. Hodgson v. Barrett , 33 Ohio St. 63; Benjamin on. Sales, sec. 731. . . As. between vendor and ......
-
Cuesta, Rey & Co. v. Newsom
...... v. Butchers' & Drovers' Bk., 11 N.Y. Super. Ct. (4 Duer) 219; Farmers' & Mechanics' Bk. v. Butchers' & Drovers' Bk., 14 N.Y. 624; Brown. v. Leckie, 43 Ill. 497; Girard Bk. v. Bk. of. Penn., 39 Pa. 92, 80 Am. Dec. 507. . . Section. 4840, Rev. Gen. St. 1920, section 6926, ......
-
Hogue v. Edwards
......174. Irrelevant and inapplicable instructions should not be given: Stout v. McAdams, 2 Scam. 67; Reeder v. Purdy, 41 Ill. 280; Brown v. Graham, 24 Ill. 628; Webber v. Brown, 38 Ill. 87; Trustees v. McCormick, 41 Ill. 323; Ten Eyck v. Harris, 47 Ill. 268; Adams v. Smith, 58 Ill. ...Pierce, 80 Ill. 214; C. M. & F. Ins. Co. v. Stanford, 28 Ill. 168; Bickford v. First Nat. Bank, 42 Ill. 239; Brown v. Leckie, 43 Ill. 497; Seventh Nat. Bank v. Cook, 73 Pa. St. 485. When a depositor directs his banker to make payment to a third party, and the ......
-
Welge v. Batty
......Bank v. Oceana Co. Bank, 80 Ill. 212; Munn v. Burch, 25 Ill. 35; Brown v. Leckie, 43 Ill. 497; Fourth Nat. Bank v. City Nat. Bank, 68 Ill. 398; Bickford v. First Nat. Bank, 41 Ill. 238. Payments made to an ......