Henrietta Nat. Bank v. State Nat. Bank
| Decision Date | 01 May 1891 |
| Citation | 16 S.W. 321 |
| Parties | HENRIETTA NAT. BANK v. STATE NAT. BANK. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
A. K. Swan, for appellants. Hunter, Stewart & Dunklin, for appellee.
This suit was brought by the appellee to recover of the Henrietta National Bank and Frank Brown, its receiver, the amount of a check drawn upon it by E. F. & W. S. Ikard. On the 22d of July, 1887, E. F. & W. S. Ikard drew a check on the defendant bank in favor of one T. F. West for $1,800. West indorsed and delivered it to one Atkinson, who on the next day presented it to the cashier of the plaintiff bank at Ft. Worth, with the request that he cash it. The cashier immediately telegraphed the defendant bank as follows: "Will you pay E. F. & W. S. Ikard's check for eighteen hundred dollars on presentation?" The cashier of the defendant bank on the same day replied by telegram: "Yes; will pay the Ikard check." Upon the receipt of this telegram the plaintiff discounted the paper, and the holder transferred it to the bank by indorsement and delivery. The check was immediately sent by mail to the defendant bank, with a request to remit the amount to the plaintiff. The letter reached Henrietta on Sunday, and on Monday, before banking hours, the directors of the defendant bank determined to suspend payment, and thereafter its doors were not opened for regular business. The court having given judgment for the plaintiff for the full amount of the check and interest, and the defendants having appealed, they now complain in effect that the correspondence by telegraph between the two banks did not sufficiently describe the check, so as to make the promise of the defendant bank an acceptance. The authority mainly relied upon by appellants' counsel in support of their contention is the case of Coolidge v. Payson, 2 Wheat. 66. In that case Chief Justice MARSHALL says: "Upon a review of the cases which are reported, this court is of the opinion that a letter written within a reasonable time before or after the date of a bill of exchange, describing it in terms not to be mistaken, and promising to accept it, is, if shown to the person, who afterwards takes the bill on the credit of the letter, a virtual acceptance, binding the person who makes the promise." The doctrine was reaffirmed in the same court in the cases of Schimmelpennich v. Bayard, 1 Pet. 284, and Boyce v. Edwards, 4 Pet. 111, and has been frequently followed in other courts. Whether, according to the rule laid down, the correspondence should show any more than the amount and character of the bill as to the time of payment, we need not here inquire, though it would seem that such a description ought to be sufficient, acording to the most rigid rule recognized by any court. The rule, however, applies only to a case in which it is sought to charge the defendant as the acceptor of the bill. Cases may arise in which the party...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First Nat. Bank v. Sanford
...or promise to pay by drawee." In support of the contention so presented appellant cites Henrietta National Bank v. State National Bank, 80 Tex. 648, 16 S. W. 321, 26 Am. St. Rep. 773, as holding that "a promise to accept a draft is tantamount to an acceptance"; Neumann v. Schroeder, 71 Tex.......
-
Selma Sav. Bank v. Webster County Bank
... ... BANK v. WEBSTER COUNTY BANK. SELMA SAV. BANK v. FARMERS' NAT". BANK. Court of Appeals of Kentucky. December 20, 1918 ... \xC2" ... The ... petitions as amended do not state that the bank cashiers ... reduced their telegrams to writing and signed ... Union Nat. Bank, 91 U.S. 406, 23 L.Ed. 245; ... Henrietta ... ...
-
Collier Mfg. & Supply, Inc. v. Interfirst Bank Austin, N.A.
...Tex.Bus. & Com.Code § 4.402, supra, nor does it forbid delay for a reasonable time to make inquiry. See Henrietta Nat. Bank v. State Nat. Bank, 80 Tex. 648, 16 S.W. 321, 322 (1891). We will not consider the applicability of any "federal regulations" when InterFirst has not itself done so in......
-
Waggoner Banking Co. v. Gray County State Bank
...not a contract on the part of appellant to accept a draft drawn on it, and in that is unlike the case of Henrietta National Bank v. Bank, 80 Tex. 648, 16 S. W. 321, 26 Am. St. Rep. 773, cited by appellee. It is only a guaranty that the drafts will be paid when drawn on the grain company, bu......