Chicago Marine & Fire Insurance v. Stanford ex rel. Ward

A depositor may draw checks upon his banker at pleasure, for the whole or any part ot' moneys to his credit in bank; and each holder of a check may recover the amount expressed in it. A depositor should draw his checks in good faith, and not to multiply suits.

This action was commenced before a justice of the peace, by Stanford against the plaintiff in error. On the trial before the justice the plaintiff obtained judgment, and the defendant appealed to the. Superior Court of Chicago, where the case was. tried by the court without the intervention of a jury, and Stanford again had judgment against the plaintiff in error. On the trial, the plaintiff (Stanford) offered in evidence the following check: “ Chicago, June 20, 1861. “ Chicago Marine and Fire Insurance Company, pay to J. D. Ward or bearer, ninety-five dollars. ($95.) G. W. STANFORD.” And proved by D. J. Avery that on the 24th June, 1861, he presented that check for payment to the defendant, which was refused, save in Illinois bank notes that were then uncurrent, worth sixty or seventy cents on the dollar, which he refused to receive, but demanded par funds in payment of it. Plaintiff then called for the bank ledger of defendant, which was produced, and showed a balance of $165 due plaintiff from defendant for money deposited with it by plaintiff, and which sum stood to the credit of plaintiff at the time the check was drawn and presented for payment, and also at the commencement of this suit. It was then admitted by the parties that defendant (plaintiff in error) did a banking business at Chicago; that plaintiff had for several months kept an account with it as a depositor, in the usual course of business between banks and their depositors; and that the check offered in evidence was drawn for a part of the sum due from defendant to plaintiff for money deposited. The plaintiff then admitted that, June 21, 1861, he drew another check, in favor of E. E. Runyon, for $60, part of the same account, for money deposited with defendant by plaintiff, at which time there was a credit to plaintiff of $165 for money deposited, which check was presented for payment to defendant on the 22nd June, 1861, and payment of it was refused, except in Illinois bank notes, worth sixty-five cents on the dollar, which were refused by plaintiff. That on the same day plaintiff brought suit against defendant in his own name, to the use of said E. E. Runyon, to recover the amount due upon said check before a justice of the peace in Chicago, and recovered judgment in that case on the 27th June, 1861, for the amount of the check, $60, and costs. It was also admitted that defendant (plaintiff in error) appealed from that judgment to the Superior Court of Chicago, and that case came on for trial at the same tex'm of court with the present case, and was tried, and a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff for the amount of the check and costs. That said check and judgment were for a part of the same account for which this action was brought, and which judgment was entered before the present canse was brought on for trial. The defendant offered in evidence the record and proceedings in the cause of George W. Stanford, to the use of E. E. Runyon, against the defendant, being the same proceedings hereinbefore referred to, as evidence of a former suit and recovery of a part of the same account for the recovery of which this suit is brought, as a bar to the maintenance of this action to recover the residue of said account. Defendant then insisted that its indebtedness to plaintiff for money deposited, could not be divided into several suits, each for a part of the same account, and that the record and proceedings in the ease of Stanford, to the use of- Runyon, against the defendant, being admitted to be for a part of the same account, for the residue of which this suit was brought, was a bar to the present action. Which the court refused to hold, and rendered judgment for the plaintiff for the amount of said check, and interest, being for the balance of said account. Motion for a new trial by defendant overruled. The errors assigned are— That the court erred in refusing to hold that the indebtedness 'of plaintiff in error to defendant in error could not be split up into several suits, each for a part of the same account. That the court erred in not holding the record and proceedings in the case of Stanford, to the use of Runyon, against the 'Chicago Marine and Eire Insurance Company, a bar to the maintenance of this action. That the court erred in rendering judgment for the plaintiff below. That the court erred in not rendering judgment for the 'defendant below.