Sutherland v. First National Bank of Ypsilanti
| Decision Date | 26 January 1875 |
| Citation | 31 Mich. 230 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Nelson Sutherland and another v. The First National Bank of Ypsilanti |
Heard January 22, 1875
Error to Washtenaw Circuit.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
A. J Sawyer, for plaintiffs in error.
Joslin & Whitman, for defendant in error.
Christiancy J., did not sit in this case.
The only question in this case is whether the facts found show the payment of a promissory note.
The note was dated August 1st, 1873, payable in 30 days, at the bank of the defendant in Ypsilanti. The maker lived in Ann Arbor, and on the 4th day of September (which was on the day after the note matured, although by a clerical error the court found it matured on the 6th) he deposited with the firm of Miller & Webster, bankers of Ann Arbor, the amount of the note,-- $ 410, --with instructions to send it to the Ypsilanti bank to pay the note. Miller & Webster deposited the money to the credit of the maker, and gave him credit on their books, and this credit so remained at the time of their subsequent failure and assignment, on the 14th of September.
On the 4th of September, Miller & Webster wrote to the Ypsilanti bank, as follows:
On the 6th, the Ypsilanti bank enclosed the note to Miller & Webster with a special endorsement for collection, as follows: "Pay Miller & Webster, or order, for collection for First National Bank of Ypsilanti, Mich.
"F. P. Bogardus, Cashier."
Miller & Webster left Sutherland's deposit unchanged, and made no return to the Ypsilanti bank, and left the note among their collection paper, and it was so found by their assignee, from whom it was obtained on the 15th. On the 12th of September, the cashier, Mr. Bogardus, writing to Miller & Webster, stated as follows:
Sutherland met Webster between the 7th and 9th of September, and asked him if he had got the note. Webster said he had, and that Sutherland could call and get it. There was no communication between the Ypsilanti bank and Sutherland, during the entire interval.
The court below held there was no payment, and we concur in that view. It was Sutherland's duty...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schafer v. Olson
...on all fours with this case, and the court there held that the collecting bank was the agent of defendant. In Sutherland et al. v. First National Bank of Ypsilanti, 31 Mich. 230, it is held that, where the maker, instead of attending to the payment of a note himself, intrusts the money to h......
-
Baldwin's Bank of Penn Yan v. Smith
...23, 72 S.E. 415, 35 L.R.A. (N.S.) 13;Moore Co. v. Meyer, 57 Ala. 20;Wilkinson v. Bradley, Wilson Co., 54 Ala. 677;Sutherland v. First National Bank of Ypsilanti, 31 Mich. 230;Pease v. Warren, 29 Mich. 9, 18 Am.Rep. 58;Phillips v. Mayer, 7 Cal. 82;Moore v. Norman, 52 Minn. 83, 53 N.W. 809, 1......
-
Wagner v. Spaeth
...In re Schanke & Co., supra, and cases cited 201 Iowa 686, 207 N.W. at 760. In Morse on Banks (5th ed. Sec. 214), referring to Sutherland v. Bank, supra, it is "This case brings clearly to view the distinction that if the bank, having received a note for collection, afterward collects the mo......
-
Merchants & Planters Bank v. Meyer
...to the credit of Meyer without authority from the former. Not even t. a note left with it for collection. 12 La. An. 257; 7 Wall. 447; 31 Mich. 230; Morse on Banks, (3 ed.) sec. 214, 317; ib. 324. J. M. & J. G. Taylor for the Hammett Grocer: Company. The company received the cotton as a cot......