Offutt v. Rucker
Decision Date | 30 April 1891 |
Docket Number | 97 |
Citation | 27 N.E. 589,2 Ind.App. 350 |
Parties | OFFUTT v. RUCKER |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Petition for a rehearing overruled Sept. 19, 1891.
From the Rush Circuit Court.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
B. L Smith and B. Cambern, for appellant.
D. S Morgan and D. Morris, for appellee.
The errors assigned and discussed by counsel in this cause are:
1. The overruling of appellant's demurrer to the appellee's complaint.
2. The sustaining of the appellee's demurrer to the third paragraph of the appellant's answer.
3. The sustaining of the appellee's demurrer to the fifth paragraph of appellant's answer.
The action was on a bank check. The complaint is as follows:
etc.
The particular objections to the complaint, for which appellant's counsel insist the demurrer should have been sustained, are stated in their brief, as follows:
It was not necessary to aver that the appellant had no funds in the bank. It is immaterial what the bank's motive may have been for refusing to pay the check. Appellee could not have enforced payment from the bank whether it rightfully or wrongfully withheld such payment. There was no privity of contract between the payee of the check and the bank. The appellant had no cause of action against it. Such a check, without words of transfer, does not operate as an equitable assignment pro tanto of the funds on deposit in the bank to the credit of the drawer of the check. Harrison v. Wright, 100 Ind. 515. The averment contended for by the appellant was, therefore, not necessary.
Neither will the complaint be rendered insufficient by failing to allege notice of the dishonor of the check, though we do not decide that such notice is not, in fact, averred in the complaint.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial