Strong v. Farmers & Mechanics' Bank of Michigan
| Decision Date | 01 January 1856 |
| Citation | 4 Mich. 350 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Heman N. Strong v. Farmers & Mechanics' Bank of Michigan |
[Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material]
Case reserved from Wayne circuit.
On the 29th day of September, A. D. 1855, the plaintiff, being the holder of thirty of the circulating bills of the Farmers & Mechanics' bank of Michigan, each for the sum of five dollars, and payable on demand to the bearer, presented said bills at one and the same time at the counter of the bank in the city of Detroit, and demanded the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars in payment and redemption thereof. Whereupon, the bank, without delay, tendered and offered to pay the plaintiff, in redemption of said bills, three hundred pieces of silver coin of the United States, known as half-dollars, coined by authority of the United States, and issued under the first section of the act entitled "An act amendatory of existing laws relative to the half-dollar, quarter-dollar, dime, and half-dime," approved February 21, 1853, which said offer and tender was refused by the plaintiff, who then brought this action on said circulating notes. The defendant gave a special notice of the foregoing facts, claiming that they constituted a tender. To this notice the plaintiff demurred, to which there was a joinder, and the circuit judge reserved the following question: "Whether the said tender and offer of payment were sufficient in law, and whether the demurrer put in by the plaintiff to the notice of the defendant, setting forth the facts of such offer and tender, ought to be sustained?" The first section of the act of congress of February, 1853, provides for the weight of silver coins to be issued after June 1, 1853. The second section is in these words:
G. V. N. Lothrop and J. V. Campbell, for defendants:
The word "debts" in the act of congress has the same meaning as causes of action. A person cannot unite several distinct causes of action, and thereby establish a rule for the aggregate which he could not claim for any single cause of action. Each one of these circulating notes in this case was a distinct cause of action; separate suits could be brought on each one. The holder could undoubtedly present each one of these notes separately, and demand redemption of them. Can a man change all this by simply putting all the notes into one package and demanding redemption of all at once? Suppose a man issues a number of promissory notes to various persons, each not exceeding the amount of five dollars. Suppose, further, they all fall into one person's hands, cannot the debtor make a separate tender on each? Can the creditor insist that he will not receive payment of one, without all are paid? Or can he insist on a mode of payment for the aggregate, which he would have no right to on the individual notes? There can be no difference we think, between such a case and the one now before this court. We will suppose that silver was the only legal tender for sums of five dollars and under; now, should it happen that silver was worth more than gold, it is clear that the holder of these notes could compel a redemption in silver. And it would be hard if the holder could compel the bank to stand ready to redeem in this mode, and yet could avoid accepting it when tendered. There would be no mutuality about it. It is clear that there are as many debts as there are notes. In an action, if the declaration is special, each must be counted on; if the common counts are used, each must be set out in the bill of particulars, and each proven at the trial; each may have a separate defense, or rather, the defense to one or more may have no necessary connection with the rest. Should the holder desire to protest such paper, he must protest each note separately. And it may be well to remark that each note is separately countersigned by the state treasurer.
The obligation of the bank, by its charter, is to pay its notes on demand, in "the lawful currency of the United States:" Laws 1849, p. 123, § 3. We suppose this means any currency which is a lawful tender for any note presented for payment. The bank issues its notes with reference to this obligation. If silver coin is a lawful tender for all notes not exceeding five dollars, the bank makes its promise with reference to that; and the right of the holder...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. Dennison v. Circuit Judge for County of Genesee
... ... court for the county of Genesee $ 60 in national bank ... notes and $ 25 in United States legal tender notes and ... Kellogg v. Putnam 11 ... Mich. 344; Michigan Insurance Co. v. Whittemore 12 ... Mich. 427. If there was ... bills, each note representing a separate debt. Strong v ... F. & M. Bank 4 Mich. 350. In VanHusan v ... ...
-
Colgrove v. Solomon
... ... Rare, 1 Iowa 198; Griffith v. Ford Co. Bank, 9 Gill ... & J. (Md.), 142; Brown v. Witter, 10 Ohio 142; ... ...
-
Otis v. Mechanics' Bank
...according to its legal effect, in separate counts, as required by our code of practice. (2 Mo. 34; 33 Mo. 497; 7 Barb. 80; Hardin, 3; 4 Mich. 350; 19 Mo. 551.) A pleading to be good by the settled rules of law, as established by our code of practice, must state all the necessary facts const......
-
Boatman's Sav. Inst. v. Bank of Missouri
...these notes were so many separate demands for five dollars is fully adjudicated by the case of Strong v. Farmers' and Mechanics' Bank, in 4 Mich. 350. This was the sole question presented and decided in that case, and is directly in point here. This line of argument is not in conflict with ......