Sykes v. First National Bank
Decision Date | 20 October 1891 |
Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Parties | E. T. SYKES and D. D. BROOKS, partners doing business as E. T. Sykes & Co., Plaintiffs, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, Defendants. |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lincoln County, SD
Affirmed
R. B. Tripp, Bartlett Tripp, Yankton, SD
Attorneys for appellant.
L. B. French, Yankton, SD
Attorney for respondent.
Opinion filed Oct. 20, 1891
This is an action brought by plaintiffs to enforce the payment of the sum of $7,088 alleged to have been assigned to plaintiffs by one Pattee, which had come into the possession of the defendant with notice of the assignment. The action was tried to a jury, and a verdict and judgment directed by the court in favor of plaintiffs. Motion for a new trial was made and overruled, and defendant appeals to this court from the judgment and order. The plaintiffs in their complaint allege that in April, 1888, a contract was entered into between one Pattee and the board of trustees of the Dakota Hospital for the Insane, by which said Pattee agreed to construct two wings to said hospital, including a plant for steam heating, for the sum of $70,000; that subsequently said Pattee entered into a sub-contract with those plaintiffs to construct said steam heating plant for said two wings for the sum of $7,088; that said Pattee, in accordance with the terms of said subcontract, and at the time of making the same, duly assigned to the plaintiffs by an instrument in writing the sum of $7,088 of the money to become due from the territory on his contract with the board, payable out of the steam heating fund; that the plaintiffs fully performed their said subcontract; that the board of trustees issued to said Pattee vouchers for the sum of $10,000 on said steam heating fund, which vouchers were transferred to the defendant by said Pattee, and warrants obtained thereon from the territorial auditor, which were paid to defendant by the territorial treasurer, and that said defendant received said fund with notice that said sum of $7,088 of said fund had been duly assigned to the plaintiffs by said Pattee; that, upon the receipt of said fund by said defendant, it promised the plaintiffs to pay to them the amount so assigned to them; and that same had been demanded of said defendant, and payment thereof refused. The answer admits the copartnership of plaintiffs, the making of the contract between the said Pattee and the board of trustees, and the incorporation of the defendant, and denies the other allegations of the complaint. The answer then alleges that in August, 1888, and for a long time thereafter, said Pattee was one of the depositors of said defendant bank, and that his deposits consisted chiefly of vouchers issued to him by the board of trustees of the Dakota Hospital for the Insane on the contract between said board and said Pattee, set out in the complaint; that said vouchers were forwarded to the territorial auditor by the defendant, and he issued his warrants thereon, which were transferred by indorsement by the defendant under and by virtue of a power of attorney from Pattee, and collected by the defendant of the territorial treasurer, and the money placed to the credit of Pattee in the said defendant bank; that the amounts so placed to the credit of said Pattee were and could be drawn out by said Pattee on checks in the ordinary course of business; that on or about January 7, 1889, the said Pattee transmitted to the defendant vouchers on said steam heating fund for $8,029, which were collected in the manner above stated on account of said Pattee; that on or about the same date said Pattee transmitted to the defendant a check in favor of said plaintiffs for the sum of $7,088, with a bill for $261.95 against said plaintiffs to be deducted therefrom, said check to be paid on condition of the allowance and deduction of said bill; that defendant communicated the fact of the drawing of said check by Pattee, and the bill for $261.95 to be deducted therefrom, to the plaintiffs; that plaintiffs refused to allow said bill, or receive the amount of said check less said bill, which fact defendant communicated to said Pattee, who thereupon directed the defendant not to pay said plaintiffs anything on account of their said contract, and revoked defendant's authority to honor said check, which said revocation remains in full force and effect.
The facts, as proven and admitted on the trial, briefly stated, are as follows: In the spring of 1888 the board of trustees of the Dakota Hospital for the Insane, situated at Yankton, S. D., entered into a contract with one J. B. Pattee to construct two wings to the Dakota Hospital for the Insane, including heating apparatus for heating the same. In July of that year said Pattee entered into a written contract with the plaintiffs, Sykes & Co., to construct in said wings to said hospital steam heating apparatus, in which subcontract between Pattee and Sykes & Co. are the following clauses: In pursuance of the terms of said contract above specified, said Pattee, on July 20, 1888, made the following order and assignment: This order and assignment was presented to the board of trustees for the hospital, but the board declined to accept the same. Thereupon, on August 15th, Mr. Pattee wrote to Sykes & Co. the following letter: And on the following day, August 16th, J. H. Gale, then cashier of the defendant bank, wrote to Sykes & Co. the following letter: And on August 18th Sykes & Co. wrote in reply as follows: E. T. Sykes, one of the firm of Sykes & Co., testified on the trial that, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial