The Bank of Peru v. Farnsworth

• Decision Date: 30 April 1857
• Citation: 8 Peck 563,1857 WL 5629,18 Ill. 563
• Parties: THE BANK OF PERUv.ELIJAH N. FARNSWORTH.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

18 Ill. 563
1857 WL 5629 (Ill.)
8 Peck (IL) 563

THE BANK OF PERU
v.
ELIJAH N. FARNSWORTH.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April Term, 1857.

Appeal from La Salle.

The banks of this state are prohibited from issuing time certificates of deposit or other paper, not payable on demand, and any such issue is void.

CITED: 37 Ill. 140, 142.

THIS is an action commenced by Farnsworth against the Bank of Peru, upon a certificate of deposit, on the back of which is indorsed, “Pay to order of E. N. Farnsworth, John Farnsworth. Pay the bearer, E. N. Farnsworth.”

The appellee filed a declaration in the county court of La Salle county, as follows:

The first count of the declaration was upon the certificate of deposit, setting it out in substance, and the indorsement by the depositor to the appellee--the liability of appellant, promise to pay, and presentment for payment and refusal.

The second count alleges that on September 22, 1854, at Peru, in consideration that John Farnsworth, at the special instance and request of the appellant, would deposit in the Bank of Peru, for four months from and after said September 22, 1854, $240 in currency, the appellant undertook and promised to pay the appellees the sum of $240 in currency, in four months after date of deposit, and avers that John Farnsworth did, on the day and year aforesaid, make the deposit and suffer it to remain the four months, and that appellant has not paid, though often requested, etc., and containing also the common counts.

Copy of the certificate of deposit, being the only instrument or account declared on or filed.

The defendant filed the general issue, and several special pleas.

There was a trial and verdict. Motion for a new trial overruled, and judgment rendered for $256.04, costs; and exceptions taken, and appeal. Bill of exceptions shows: first, the pleadings; second, that appellee offered in evidence the certificate of deposit.

[18 Ill. 564]

Appellant admitted signature of cashier, and that he was cashier, which was all the evidence offered with and to prove the same.

That defendant objected to the introduction of said certificate in evidence, for the following, among other reasons:

1st. That it was issued in violation of law, and void.

2d. That it was an agreement to pay articles of personal property, and not money; and that bank had no authority to issue any bill, note or certificate for anything but money.

3d. That no action can be maintained on the certificate, or to recover the money deposited, unless in...