Laird v. State
| Decision Date | 08 February 1884 |
| Citation | 61 Md. 309 |
| Parties | JAMES E. LAIRD v. THE STATE OF MARYLAND. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Richard W. Bosley, and William S. Bryan Jr., for the appellant.
Charles B. Roberts, Attorney General, for the appellee.
The plaintiff in error was indicted for forging and uttering a bill of exchange, which is set out in the indictment as follows:
"Staunton, Va. September 4, 1882.
Augusta National Bank, pay to J. Edwin Laird or bearer, the sum of seventy-five dollars ($75) current funds.
G. G. Gooch.
Correct, W. P. Tarns, Cashier."
And endorsed "J. Edwin Laird."
A demurrer was filed to the indictment, which was overruled, and the prisoner was tried before the court and found guilty.
Motions for new trial, and to quash the indictment were made, and both overruled, and the prisoner was sentenced to the penitentiary for five years. The record comes before us on petition setting forth the points and questions, by the decision of which the plaintiff in error feels aggrieved.
In regard to the first assignment of error, that there is a variance between the presentment and indictment, it is only necessary to say, that when one is tried upon an indictment, we must look to it and not to the presentment to ascertain the nature and character of the offense charged. By the finding of the indictment, the grand jury has the right to correct, change, or modify, the presentment.
In the next place it is argued, that the paper-writing set forth in the indictment, is not a bill of exchange because it is payable "in current funds." Bills of exchange pass by delivery or endorsement, and it is essential that the instrument purporting to be one, should be payable in money. A direction to pay out of certain funds, or notes of a particular bank, or the currency of a particular place or State, have been held to destroy its negotiability, because the medium of payment is fluctuating and uncertain. The many and conflicting decisions on this subject, will be found collected in 1 Daniels on Neg. Inst. secs. 61-3, and note. All the cases however agree, if the instrument be payable in current money, it is sufficient, because legal tender money will be presumed to be intended. The words "current funds" as used in the paper before us, mean nothing more or less than "current money," and so construed the instrument was negotiable.
Again it is said the paper ought to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Feder v. Elliott
...funds. The great weight of authority also sustains this conclusion. Bull v. Bank of Kasson, 123 U.S. 105 (31 L.Ed. 97, 8 S.Ct. 62); Laird v. State, 61 Md. 309; Lacy Holbrook, 4 Ala. 88; Bank of Peru v. Farnsworth, 18 Ill. 563; Swift v. Whitney, 20 Ill. 144; Galena Ins. Co. v. Kupfer, 28 Ill......
-
W. J. Howey Company, a Corp. v. Cole
...269 S.W. 955 219 Mo.App. 34W. J. HOWEY COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. A. B. COLE, Special Deputy Commissioner of Finance of the State of Missouri, in Charge of McGIRK STATE BANK, a Corporation, and McGIRK STATE BANK, Respondents. Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas CityApril 30, ... Bank of America, 240 Ill. 100; ... Millikan v. Trust Co., supra; Gypsum Valley National Bank ... v. Dillenbeck, 205 P. 1022 (Kansas); Laird v ... State, 61 Md. 309; Hatch v. First National ... Bank, 94 Me. 348; Tripp v. Curtenius, 36 Mich ... 494; Butler v. Paine, 8 Minn. 324; Pardee ... ...
-
City of St. Louis v. Grafeman Dairy Company
... ... St. Louis v ... Galt, 179 Mo. 18; St. Louis v. Fischer, 167 Mo ... 664, 194 U.S. 362; Ferrenbach v. Turner, 86 Mo. 420; ... State v. Dupaquier, 46 La. Ann. 583; Parker & Worth ... on Pub. Health and Safety (1892), secs, 299, 304, pp. 343, ... 348; St. Louis v. Weber, 44 Mo ... ...