Davis v. The Bank Of Fulton
| Decision Date | 31 August 1860 |
| Parties | DAVIS et al. vs. THE BANK OF FULTON. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Assumpsit, in Fulton Superior Court. Tried before Judge Bull, at the April Term, 1860.
The Bank of Fulton brought an action in Fulton Superior Court against James C. Davis, as drawer and endorser, and Williams, Rhea & Co., as acceptors, to recover the sum due on a bill of exchange, drawn by James C. Davis, addressed to the said Williams, Rhea & Co., and accepted by them.
The defendants pleaded to said action: the general issue: payment; set-off; misjoinder of parties defendant; and that there was no such bank as the Bank of Fulton.
On the trial in the Court below, the plaintiff introduced in evidence the bill of exchange sued on. which was read to the jury without objection.
The plaintiff, also, proposed to prove, that the bill of exchange sued on, was presented to the makers, and payment demanded and refused, and notice to the endorsers, which testimony was objected to by defendants. The objection was overruled and the testimony admitted, and the defendants excepted. The plaintiff then closed his case.
The defendants' counsel then moved the Court for a nonsuit, as to the endorser, on the following grounds:
1st. Because the plaintiff had sued as a corporation, and there was no proof of such corporate body capable of bringing this suit.
2d. Because the bill of exchange, read in evidence, showed that it was made for the purpose of being negotiated, and was actually negotiated at a chartered bank, and as such, the drawer, endorser and acceptors could not be sued in the same action, and that they were improperly joined as defendants in this case.
3d. That the 11th section of the charter of the Bank of Fulton is void, as it contains matter different from what is expressed in the title of the Act incorporating said bank.
The presiding Judge overruled the motion for a nonsuit, and a verdict and judgment were rendered for the plaintiff.
To these rulings of the Court, the defendants excepted, and bring the writ of error in this case, to reverse the judgment.
A. W. Stone, for the plaintiff in error.
J. I. Whitaker, for the defendants in error.
By the Court. —Jenkins, J., delivering the opinion.
1. The first exception to the ruling of the Court below assumes that in a case, wherein a corporation is plaintiff, the Court is bound to ignore its existence, unless an exemplified copy of the statute incorporating it, be put in evidence. We hold, that by the first section of "An Act to regulate the admission of evidence in certain cases, " etc., T. R. R. Cobb's Digest, 272, bank charters are public Acts, and it is made the duty of Courts to take judicial notice thereof, as in case of other public laws.
2. The exception on the ground of misjoinder of the defendants is not well taken, because, although the general rule is as herein stated, this case is governed by the 11th section of the Charter of the Bank of Fulton, which expressly authorizes such joinder.
3. The 11th section of the Charter of the Bank of Fulton is not unconstitutional, as "containing matter in the body of the Act different from what is expressed in the title thereof." Had a section been incorporated in this charter, altering the General Law, in regard to the joinder of drawers, endorsers and acceptors of bills so negotiated, or meant to be negotiated in bank, the exception would have been well taken. But under the title "An Act to incorporate the Bank of Fulton, " no grant, or privilege, or franchise, necessary or proper to a banking institution, is matter different from what is expressed in the title. The nth section is but the grant of such a privilege.
We find no error in the rulings of the Court below.
JUDGMENT.Whereupon, it is considered and adjudged by the Court, that the judgment of the Court below be affirmed.
CHARTER OP BANK—JUDICIAL, COGNIZANCE OF. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrell v. Cane, (No. 4171.)
...are not at variance with the title. A case which seems to be in point upon the precise questions now before us is that of Davis v. Bank, 31 Ga. 69, in which it was held that, in an act granting a charter to a bank, any grant of franchise or franchises may be conferred without embodying matt......
-
Harrell v. Cane Growers' Co-op. Ass'n
... ... the general purpose of the act is required is to prevent ... "logrolling." In Robinson v. Bank, 18 Ga ... 65, 89, it was held that, where the title of an act indicates ... the legislative ... A case which seems to be in point ... upon the precise questions now before us is that of Davis ... v. Bank, 31 Ga. 69, in which it was held that, in an act ... granting a charter to a bank, ... ...
-
Wilson v. Exch. Bank
...1826. Beckwith v. Carleton, 14 Ga. 693. And see generally on this subject Vinson v. Piatt, 21 Ga. 135; Lamar v. Cottle, 27 Ga. 265; Davis v. Bank, 31 Ga. 69; Ware v. Bank, 59 Ga. 844. The defense of set-off was also unknown to the common law, because "the primitive notion of an action did n......
-
State v. Mathews
...and that subject is properly expressed in the title. (City of St. Louis v. Tiefel, 42 Mo. 578; People v. Mahoney, 13 Mich. 495; Davis v. Bank of Fulton, 31 Ga. 69; McAunich v. Mississippi R.R. Co., 20 Iowa, 338; Robinson v. Skipworth, 23 Ind. 311; O'Leary v. Cook, 28 Ill. 534; People v. Law......