Deland v. the Dixon Nat'l Bank.
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
| Writing for the Court | CRAIG |
| Citation | 111 Ill. 323,1884 WL 9964 |
| Parties | GEORGE M. DELANDv.THE DIXON NATIONAL BANK. |
| Decision Date | 17 November 1884 |
111 Ill. 323
1884 WL 9964 (Ill.)
GEORGE M. DELAND
v.
THE DIXON NATIONAL BANK.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
Filed at Ottawa Nov. 17, 1884.
[111 Ill. 324]
APPEAL from the Appellate Court for the Second District;--heard in that court on writ of error to the Circuit Court of Lee county; the Hon. JOHN V. EUSTACE, Judge, presiding.Messrs. BARGE, RATHBUN & BARGE, for the appellant:
The defendant undertook to collect the Dart note for the plaintiff, and is responsible for the negligence or default of a notary, or correspondent, or its own servants and agents. Darcy v. Jones, 42 N. J. L. 28; Arnault v. Pacific Bank, 47 N. Y. 570; Walker v. Bank, 9 Id. 582; Ætna Ins. Co. v. Alton City Bank, 25 Ill. 243; Commercial Bank v. Union Bank, 1 Kern. 203.
A forged indorsement or check can not be ratified. Shisler v. Vandike, 92 Pa. St. 447; McHugh v. County of Schuyler, 69 Id. 391.
The burden of proof was on the bank to show it had paid out the deposit by authority. Watt v. Kirby, 15 Ill. 200.
Bankers are presumed to know the signatures of their customers, and they pay checks purporting to be drawn on them, at their peril. Weissen's Admr. v. Dennison, 10 N. Y. 68; Bank v. Ricker, 71 Ill. 439; Price v. Neal, 3 Burr, 1354; Wilson v. Alexander, 3 Scam. 392; Hoffman v. Bank of Milwaukee,
[111 Ill. 325]
12 Wall. 181; United States Bank v. Bank of Georgia, 10 Wheat. 333; Marine Bank v. Chandler, 27 Ill. 525; Marine Bank v. Rushmore, 28 Id. 463; Linkham & Co. v. Heyworth, 31 Id. 519.Mr. A. K. TRUSDELL, for the appellee:
That appellant's acquiescence amounts to a ratification of the cashier's act in signing his name to check, see 1 Livermore on Agency, 44; Paley on Agency, 171; Bank v. Warren, 15 N. Y. 577.
Where the court is satisfied, from the whole record, that substantial justice has been done, it will not reverse. Glickauf v. Hirschhorn, 73 Ill. 577; Railway Co. v. Ingraham, 77 Id. 309.
Mr. JUSTICE CRAIG delivered the opinion of the Court:
George M. DeLand, appellant, was a depositor with the Dixon National Bank from 1873 until 1877. In the month of April, 1877, the bank made out and delivered to DeLand a pass book and forty-two vouchers, which contained a full statement of moneys received by the bank and moneys paid out, as shown by the forty-two vouchers. From 1873 to 1877 DeLand had no book showing his transactions with the bank, but the entire account was kept by the bank. The statement of account, as furnished by the bank in April, 1877, showed the account balanced, and nothing due DeLand. No steps were taken by him in regard to the transaction until October 17, 1879, when he brought this action, claiming a balance due from the bank. The declaration contained the common counts, under which the plaintiff claimed to recover for money deposited with the bank, and for money collected by the bank from other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bank of Hatfield v. Clayton, 263
...authorized to receive it, or that she had ratified an unauthorized payment made. 7 C. J. 699; Michie on Banks and Banking, 1341, sec. 154; 111 Ill. 323; 13 Cyc. 1647. Johnson, vice president of the bank, appropriated appellee's funds, for which the bank was liable. Citizens' Bank & Trust Co......
-
Lewis v. West Side Trust & Sav. Bank, No. 25371.
...make a prima facie case by proving the same things that would be required in a suit against the bank itself (DeLand v. Dixon Nat. Bank, 111 Ill. 323) plus the proof as to the time the stockholders held their stock, and the number and par value of their shares. We have held, without exceptio......
-
Levin v. Nw. Nat. Bank.
...of Hatfield v. Chatham, 160 Ark. 530, 255 S.W. 31; Cheney v. Bank of Bremen, 25 Ga.App. 114, 102 S.E. 903; De Land v. Dixon Nat. Bank, 111 Ill. 323; Boney v. Bank of Rose Hill, 190 N.C. 863, 129 S.E. 583; Fourth & Central Trust Co. of Cincinnati v. Johnson, 24 Ohio App. 129, 156 N.e. 462; I......
-
Smyth v. Lynch
...6 v. Aetna Ins. Co., 62 Me. 330; Ladd v. Hildebrant, 27 Wis. 135; Bank v. Morley, 19 Wis. 72; Kerr v. Sharp, 83 Ill. 199; De Land v. Bank, 111 Ill. 323; Craighead v. Peterson, 72 N.Y. 279; Hamlin v. Sears, 82 N.Y. 327; Railway Co. v. Jay, 65 Ala. 113. These and many other cases approve the ......
-
Bank of Hatfield v. Clayton, 263
...authorized to receive it, or that she had ratified an unauthorized payment made. 7 C. J. 699; Michie on Banks and Banking, 1341, sec. 154; 111 Ill. 323; 13 Cyc. 1647. Johnson, vice president of the bank, appropriated appellee's funds, for which the bank was liable. Citizens' Bank & Trust Co......
-
Barrett v. Davis
...(1884), 39 N.J.Eq. 203; Alexander v. Jones (1884), 64 Iowa 207, 19 N.W. 913; Brigham v. Peters (1854), 1 Gray, 139; Deland v. Bank (1884), 111 Ill. 323; Law v. Cross (1861), 66 U.S. 533, 1 Black 533, 17 L.Ed. 185. IV. Some objections have been urged to details of defendants' testimony as in......
-
Lewis v. West Side Trust & Sav. Bank, 25371.
...make a prima facie case by proving the same things that would be required in a suit against the bank itself (DeLand v. Dixon Nat. Bank, 111 Ill. 323) plus the proof as to the time the stockholders held their stock, and the number and par value of their shares. We have held, without exceptio......
-
Levin v. Nw. Nat. Bank.
...of Hatfield v. Chatham, 160 Ark. 530, 255 S.W. 31; Cheney v. Bank of Bremen, 25 Ga.App. 114, 102 S.E. 903; De Land v. Dixon Nat. Bank, 111 Ill. 323; Boney v. Bank of Rose Hill, 190 N.C. 863, 129 S.E. 583; Fourth & Central Trust Co. of Cincinnati v. Johnson, 24 Ohio App. 129, 156 N.e. 462; I......