Jones v. the Council Bluffs Branch of The State Bank of Iowa.
| Decision Date | 30 April 1864 |
| Citation | 1864 WL 2987,85 Am.Dec. 306,34 Ill. 313 |
| Parties | DANIEL A. JONES and CHARLES M. CULBERTSONv.THE COUNCIL BLUFFS BRANCH OF THE STATE BANK OF IOWA. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from Superior Court of Chicago.
The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.
Arrington & Dent, for appellants.
Walker & Dexter, for appellees.
This is an action of assumpsit to recover the sum of money mentioned in a draft dated July 16, 1861, drawn by Green & Stone on the appellants, alleged to have been verbally accepted by them, but protested for nonacceptance. The defense was, that the promise of the appellants to accept did not constitute an acceptance; that such promise was obtained by fraud, and that its consideration had failed. On the trial, the plaintiffs offered in evidence the draft and a written agreement of Green & Stone, dated August 1, 1861, by which they transferred to the appellants all their interest in certain property and claims for commissions, in consideration of the appellants undertaking to pay the draft in question. The plaintiffs also offered evidence tending to prove that the appellants promised Green & Stone that they would accept and pay the draft, and that the appellees, after they had taken it, were informed of this undertaking. A promise by the drawee to pay an existing bill is an acceptance, or, in law, amounts to an acceptance, whether the bill was taken upon the faith of the promise or not. A promise to any person interested in having a bill paid inures to the benefit of the holder. These principles were settled in the time of Lord ELLENBORUGH, and a reference to any of the text books will furnish the names of a great number of cases in which they have been acted upon in England and in this country. They are too well settled to be discussed at the present day. The court below found there was no fraud in obtaining the promise, and we are entirely satisfied with its finding. The appellants' agreement to accept the bill was for the benefit of its holders; and the agreement of Green and Jones that the net proceeds of the property and the commissions transferred to the appellants should amount to a certain sum was solely for their benefit. The nonperformance of the latter agreement furnishes no excuse for not accepting and paying the bill. The agreements were not intended to be dependent on each other. The undertaking on the part of the appellants was, that they would pay the bills when they...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cunnea v. Williams
...evidence full weight. Appellant therefore sustained no injury by the action of the court, on sustaining the demurrer to them. Jones v. State Bank Iowa, 34 Ill. 313; Atlantic Ins. Co. v. Wright, 22 Ill. 462. The action of the court in striking amended pleas 9 and 10 from the files, we think ......
-
Nelson v. Ravens
...to pay an existing or non-existing bill, is not within the Statute of Frauds: Nelson v. First Nat. Bank, 48 Ill. 36; Jones v. Council Bluffs Bank, 34 Ill. 313; Mason v. Dousay, 35 Ill. 424; Sturges v. Fourth Nat. Bank, 75 Ill. 595; 2 Greenleaf's Ev. § 104. PILLSBURY, P. J. Assumpsit upon th......