State Bank of Indiana v. Holland
| Decision Date | 26 November 1858 |
| Citation | 11 Ind. 122 |
| Parties | The State Bank of Indiana v. Holland and Others |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
A Petition for a Rehearing was filed in this case, on the 4th of December, and Overruled on the 7th of the same month.
From the Franklin Circuit Court.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
This was a motion, made by the appellant, for an order directing the Sheriff to levy and collect an execution then in his hands, without any appraisement of property on which he might levy. Motion overruled, and exception taken.
It appears that the execution was issued upon a judgment recovered by the appellant against the appellees, in the same Court, on the 23d day of February, 1856, for 4,256 dollars 16 cents.
The judgment was recovered upon a bill of exchange, drawn by George Holland upon R. Tyner, in favor of Abner McCarty payable in New York, and indorsed by McCarty to N. D. Gallion, and by Gallion to the plaintiff. The bill was drawn at Brookville, Indiana, and dated September 23, 1854. Neither the bill nor the judgment waived the appraisement laws.
It further appears that the bill was drawn by Holland for the accommodation of Tyner, the acceptor, to enable him to negotiate the same, and raise the money thereon, wherever he could, and not for the exclusive purpose of being sold to, or discounted by the State Bank, or any of her branches. The witness, George Holland, called by plaintiff, says he thinks the bill was not taken by the bank in payment of a debt existing anterior to the 2d day of June, 1843. He further says, that when it was drawn and prepared, it was not drawn to be discounted at the State Bank of Indiana, or any of its branches, but generally, to enable Tyner to raise money wherever it could be done; and that the first knowledge he had of its being in the hands of the plaintiff, he received by the notice of protest.
The motion was predicated upon an act passed in 1843, "to require the bank to continue specie payments, and to enable it to maintain them." Acts of 1843, p. 52. The second section of the act is as follows, viz.:
"Whenever the said bank shall, after the first day of June next, discount any bill of exchange or other mercantile paper prepared to be discounted in the same, the whole consideration of which shall have been created or advanced after the said first of June, there shall be allowed a stay of judgment for six months from the date of the judgment, on giving sufficient security; but no appraisement or valuation shall be required or allowed before the sale of the property, which may, on being duly advertised, be sold to the highest bidder: Provided, that this act shall not extend to judgments rendered upon any domestic bill of exchange which may have been issued, sold or discounted by any branch of said bank, for a higher premium or reward, including all charges, than six per cent. per annum."
Three positions are assumed in support of the ruling below:
1. That the case made does not come within the provisions of the law.
2. That the act of 1843 was repealed by the revised code of 1852.
3. That the plaintiff, in order to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rich v. Sovacool
... ... [1]In support of this point, Mr. Ellison cited ... Wright v. State ... ...