Kupfer v. Marc

• Citation: 28 Ill. 388,18 Peck 388,1862 WL 3328
• Parties: HERMAN KUPFER, Plaintiff in Error,v.NICHOLAS MARC, Defendant in Error.
• Decision Date: 30 April 1862
• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

28 Ill. 388
1862 WL 3328 (Ill.)
18 Peck (IL) 388

HERMAN KUPFER, Plaintiff in Error,
v.
NICHOLAS MARC, Defendant in Error.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April Term, 1862.

ERROR TO LASALLE.

A bill of exchange to be paid in “funds current to-day,” will be understood to be payable in funds current everywhere; either in coin, or paper money equivalent thereto.

THIS was an action of assumpsit, begun in the LaSalle County Court.

The declaration contained a special count upon the following instrument, a copy of which is set out in the body of the count:

+------------------------------------------------+
                ¦“Exchange for $305.21.¦PERU, ILL., May 16, 1861.¦
                +------------------------------------------------+
                

No. 14476.

At sight of this my first of exchange, (second unpaid,) pay to the order of R. G. Parks, Esq., three hundred and five and 21-100 dollars, in funds current to-day, value received, and charge to account of

+--------------------------------------------+
                ¦To Hoffman & Gelpcke,  ¦)¦NICHO'S MARC.¦
                +----------------------------+-+-------------¦
                ¦Chicago, Ill.” ¦)¦ ¦
                +--------------------------------------------+
                

Indorsed, “Pay H. Kupfer, Esq., or order. R. G. PARKS.”

Also the common counts.

The defendant filed a demurrer to the special count.

This demurrer was sustained.

The common counts were nol. pros'd, and the plaintiff abided by the demurrer.

Judgment rendered for defendant.

The following errors are assigned: In sustaining demurrer to special count; in rendering judgment for defendant; and in not giving judgment for plaintiff.

LELAND & BLANCHARD, for Plaintiff in Error.

A note payable “in the lawful funds of the United States,” is payable in gold and silver. Ogden v. Slade, 1 Texas, 13.

If it be held that the writing is payable in currency, we answer that this court has decided that “by the term currency is understood bank bills or other paper money issued by authority, which passes as and for coin. Swift et al. v. Whitney, 20 Ill. 144.

[28 Ill. 389]

The holder of this bill had a legal right to demand coin in payment of the same, unless it be proven that the words current funds “have a local signification.”

A bill of exchange not specifically made payable in currency, is always payable in coin if the holder demands it.

A bill payable in “funds current” in New York, was held to be payable in gold and silver, or their equivalent, and therefore good as a bill of exchange. Lay v. Holbrook, 4 Ala. 88; Carter v. Penn, 4 Ala. 140.

Is this writing specifically made payable...