Welge v. Batty

• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois
• Writing for the Court: HIGBEE, J.
• Citation: 11 Ill.App. 461,11 Bradw. 461
• Parties: WILLIAM WELGE ET AL.v.JOHN D. BATTY ET AL.
• Decision Date: 31 May 1882

11 Ill.App. 461
11 Bradw. 461

WILLIAM WELGE ET AL.
v.
JOHN D. BATTY ET AL.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

May Term, 1882.

[11 Ill.App. 461]

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Montgomery county;

[11 Ill.App. 462]

the Hon. J. J. PHILLIPS, Judge, presiding. Opinion filed October 24, 1882.

Mr. WILLIAM ABBOTT, for appellants; that where a payment has been properly applied upon a particular debt, the debt is extinguished, cited Miller v. Montgomery, 31 Ill. 350.

Payment to a cashier is payment to the bank: Ryan v. Dunlop, 17 Ill. 40; Ralston v. Wood, 15 Ill. 159.

A bank check is presumptively drawn on a previous deposit of funds, and is an absolute appropriation of so much money in the hands of the bank: Stevens v. Park, 73 Ill. 387.

After a check has passed into the hands of a bona fide holder, the drawer can not countermand the order for payment: Union Nat. Bank v. Oceana Co. Bank, 80 Ill. 212; Munn v. Burch, 25 Ill. 35; Brown v. Leckie, 43 Ill. 497; Fourth Nat. Bank v. City Nat. Bank, 68 Ill. 398; Bickford v. First Nat. Bank, 41 Ill. 238.

Payments made to an agent, if the agent is authorized to receive payment, will bind the principal: Noble v. Nugent, 89 Ill. 522; Yates v. Valentine, 71 Ill. 643; Shepard v. Calhoun, 72 Ill. 337.

Messrs. BROWN, KIRBY & RUSSELL, for appellees; that an authority to an agent to receive payment does not authorize him to receive anything but money, cited 1 Wait's Actions and Defenses, 283; Mudgett v. Day, 12 Cal. 139; Prathur v. State Bank, 3 Ind. 356; Todd v. Reid, 4 Barn. & Ald. 210; Russell v. Burgley, 4 Barn. & Ald. 395; McCulloch v. McKee, 16 Pa. St. 289; Mangum v. Ball, 43 Miss. 288; Lawrence v. Johnson, 64 Ill. 351.

The rules governing bank checks apply to sight drafts: Bickford v. First Nat. Bank, 42 Ill. 238; Rounds v. Smith, 42 Ill. 245; Brown v. Leckie, 43 Ill. 497; Harker v. Anderson, 21 Wend. 372; Johnson v. Weed, 9 Johns. 309.

The draft was for so many dollars, and could not be satisfied with payment except in money: Hawes v. Austin, 35 Ill. 396; Lawrence v. Schmidt, 35 Ill. 440; Willitts v. Paine, 43 Ill. 432; Marc v. Kuffer, 34 Ill. 286;

[11 Ill.App. 463]

Kuffer v. Marc, 28 Ill. 388; Nolan v. Jackson, 16 Ill. 272; 2 Parsons on Contracts, 615; Edwards on Bills, 550.

An acceptance by a creditor is conditional upon the draft proving good: Huett v. Rhoades, 66 Ill. 351; Woods v. Mer. L. & T. Co. 41 Ill. 267; Stevens v. Park, 73 Ill. 387; Morrison v. Smith, 81 Ill. 221; Archibald v. Angell, 53...