Thomas R. Wood & Co. v. the Merchants' Saving

Citation1866 WL 4577,41 Ill. 267
CourtSupreme Court of Illinois
Decision Date30 April 1866
PartiesTHOMAS R. WOOD & CO.v.THE MERCHANTS' SAVING, LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Chicago; the Hon. JOSEPH E. GARY, Judge, presiding.

The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. JOHN G. ROGERS, for the appellants.

Messrs. GOODRICH, FARWELL & SMITH, for the appellee. Mr. JUSTICE BREESE delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action of assumpsit brought in the Superior Court of Chicago, by the Merchants' Saving, Loan and Trust company, against Thomas R. Wood and Company, on a note of which this is a copy:

+-----------------------------------+
                ¦“$907.45.¦Chicago, August 10, 1864.¦
                +-----------------------------------+
                

On the 26th day of September, after date, we promise to pay to the order of Messrs. George A. Berry & Co., nine hundred and seven dollars and forty-five cents, at the banking house of J. G. Conrad, Chicago. Value received.

THOMAS R. WOOD & CO.

The note was indorsed to the plaintiff.

The plea was the general issue, with an agreement that the defendants might give special matters in evidence under it.

The cause was tried by the court, and a verdict for the plaintiffs for $951.46. A motion for a new trial having been overruled, and exception taken, judgment was rendered on this finding, to reverse which, the cause is brought here by appeal, and the error assigned is, this finding of the court, and refusing to grant a new trial.

The facts of the case are, briefly, as follows: Appellees, being then the owners of the note, on the twenty-ninth day of September presented it at the banking house of Conrad, and was told that the note was good, and the teller so certified, by writing upon the face of the note the words “Good, C. W. Dunlop, teller,” and with this, the holder left the bank with the note, without the money. At that time appellants had on deposit with Conrad funds sufficient to pay the amount due on the note.

On the thirtieth of September, the day following the presentation of the note, Conrad made an assignment, and his bank was closed, and has not been opened for business since, he being insolvent from that day, and the amount standing to the credit of appellants, having never been withdrawn. Appellants insist, that the presentation of the note at Conrad's banking house, and it being there certified as “good,” and the failure of the holder then and there to receive the amount due on the note in money, which he had the right and opportunity of doing, released the makers of the note, and was equivalent to payment by the makers.

The whole case, in the view we take of it, turns on this proposition:

Had the holder this right, and had Conrad any authority whatever to pay the note, out of the funds on deposit in his bank to the credit of the makers?

The custom sought to be established among bankers has nothing, in our judgment, to do with the question. What is the effect of making a note payable at a particular place? Was it ever before heard, that the effect was to transfer, ipso facto, the money at the place belonging to the makers, absolutely to the holder, on his presenting the note at the place of payment. There is no such rule, in any commercial country, of which we have any knowledge. It is well settled doctrine, in the courts of England and of this country, and of this court, that the holder of such paper is not under any obligation, even to present the note for payment when payable. The maker, in an action against him on such note, may plead, in bar of damages and costs, a readiness to pay at the time and place.

We do not understand that the fact of making a note payable at a particular place, amounts to an agreement that the maker may make a deposit at the bank, of the amount of the note, and thus discharge his obligation, and that the money so deposited, is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • Nohrnberg v. Boley
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 1 Junio 1925
    ...L. 610, 611; Ward v. Smith, 7 Wall. (U.S.) 447, 19 L.Ed. 207; Carpenter v. National Shawmut Bank, 187 F. 1, 109 C. C. A. 55; Wood v. Merchants Trust Co., 41 Ill. 267; National Bank v. Patton & Hamilton, 109 Ill. 479.) Since the testimony affirmatively showed that the agreement of the partie......
  • Morley v. Univ. of Detroit
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 23 Octubre 1934
    ...The language used in this section, however, must not be so expanded as to destroy other provisions of the act.’ In Wood v. Merchants' Savings, Loan & Trust Co., 41 Ill. 267, suit was brought against the maker of a note payable at a banking house. At the due date of the note the maker thereo......
  • Welge v. Batty
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 31 Mayo 1882
  • Merchants & Planters Bank v. Meyer
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 22 Octubre 1892
    ... ... molter or of instructions from him to that effect ... Wood v. Merchants' Saving, Loan & Trust ... Co. 41 Ill. 267, 270; Ridgely Nat ... Bank v. Patton, 109 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT