Citizens Bank of Noblesville v. Harrison
| Decision Date | 31 January 1891 |
| Docket Number | 14,624 |
| Citation | 26 N.E. 683,127 Ind. 128 |
| Parties | Citizens Bank of Noblesville v. Harrison |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Hamilton Circuit Court.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
G Shirts and A. F. Shirts, for appellant.
J. W Booth, for appellee.
The appellee was the plaintiff below. She alleges in her complaint that on a certain date she was the owner of a lot of wheat of the value of $ 92.15, and on said day her husband, acting as her authorized agent, sold the same to one Evans, a grain merchant, and received from him a check calling for $ 92.15, payable at the appellant's bank that said check was made payable to Mel Harrison (appellee's husband) or bearer; that the appellee was not present when said check was drawn and delivered, and had no knowledge of the terms thereof; that the appellee's said husband delivered the same to one Finch with directions to present the same to the appellant for payment at its place of business; that Finch presented said check to the appellant for payment at its said place of business and demanded payment; that the appellant received said check and cashed it and deposited the amount to the credit of the appellee's husband, and has refused to pay the said sum of money to the appellee though often requested so to do.
A demurrer was addressed to the complaint by the appellant and overruled and an exception reserved.
Thereupon the appellant filed an answer in one paragraph. The answer recites the facts as to the form in which the check was drawn and its presentation by Finch, as stated in the complaint and alleges that at the time the check was presented the appellee's husband was indebted to the appellant by note long theretofore due, in the sum of $ 300; that when Finch presented the check he only claimed $ 5 of the amount which it called for as due to him, and in response to inquiries made by the appellant's cashier stated that the remainder belonged to Mel Harrison (appellee's husband); that the cashier then stated to Finch that he would pay to him the amount which he claimed and would deposit the remainder to the credit of Mel Harrison and apply the same to his indebtedness to the appellant; that Finch made no objection and the money was deposited and applied as stated; that no demand was made by the appellee for payment until long after the application of said money as stated; that the appellant had no knowledge of...
To continue reading
Request your trial