Case ID: johns_16/html/0264-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Spencer, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Throop against Calvin Cheeseman.
    The act of entithd,anla fend, for the " ’ therein further to smJ ■ - ■■ mentioned, the laiSf'Tsmins ^hl\mmn^of one dollar, and for other pur(sess. 39. c. is a remedial law, and is to be construed.
    A bill or note, in the form and similitude of bank bills and notes, payable on demand in notes current at the bank of Albany, or in current bank bills, is a note payable in ike bills or current notes of an incorporated company within the meaning of the third section of the statute, on which the bearer, after demand of payment, may maintain an action in his own name against the maker, and mar give such bills or notes in evidence under the money courts in assumpsit.
    
    The remedy given by this statute, to the holder of such notes, against the maker, extends as wen to notes issued and bearing date before, as to those dated after the passing of the act
    THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration contained counts for money paid, money lent and advanced, The cause was tried at the , i. j j t and money had and received Schoharie circuit, in November, 1818.
    The plaintiff produced in evidence a number of bills, or Prom*ssory notes, in the form and similitude of bank bills, or notes, of different dates, both before and since the 17th of 
      April, 1816, and for different amounts, some for three dollars, and some for two cents, making, in the whole, the sum of 124 dollars and 91 cents. They were all payable in bank bills, and were expressed in different forms, of which the following are specimens:
    “ State of New- York. On demand, at my Exchange Bank, I promise to pay 0. Warner, or bearer, three dollars, in notes current at the banks in Albany. Princetown, June 17th, 1817, 16 miles from Albany, on the great western turnpike.
    
      Galvin Cheeseman.
    
    
      Elias Cheeseman, cashier.”
    
      “ State of New-York. Seventy-five cents, payable on
    demand in current bank bills, at my tavern and store in Princetown, on the great western turnpike, 16 miles from Albany. June 1st, 1816. Calvin Cheeseman.”
    “ For my own convenience, and the convenience of others, fifty cents, payable on demand in current bank bills, at my tavern and store in Princetown, on the great western turnpike, 16 miles from Albany. July 10th, 1815.
    
      Calvin Cheeseman
    
    There were others of these bills which were payable “ in notes current at the banks in Utica,” and others “ in notes current at the several banks in Albany.” The execution of the notes by the defendant was admitted, and the plaintiff proved a demand and refusal of payment, before suit brought.
    
      A verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the Court, on a case which was submittedwithout argument.
   Spencer, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the Court.

Several objections are made to the plaintiff’s recovery, which will be noticed.

The act of the 17th of April, 1816, (ch. 223. s. 3.) provides, that all bills, notes, or tickets, in the form and similitude of bank bills or notes, issued by any person or persons, and made payable in the bills, or current notes, of any incorporated company, shall and may, in case default shall be itiade in the payment of the same, according to the tenor thereof, he sued, prosecuted, and collected, by and in the name of the holder or bearer thereof; and the possession of such note, bill, or ticket, shall be deemed prima facie evidence of the holder thereof having paid value for the same.

The declaration contains counts for money paid, laid out, and expended, for money lent and advanced, and for money ■had and received.

This act is a remedial law, and is to be construed liberally, so as to suppress the mischiefs existing when the statute was enacted, and to advance the remedy for the redress of those mischiefs. The bills issued by the defendant are in the form and similitude of bank bills ; and although there is a payee, he is, probably, a mere fictitious person. At all events, there is no ground for believing that they were issued for any debt previously due ; and they were manifestly intended to be thrown into immediate circulation.

It is objected, that the bills are not expressly payable in the bills or notes of any incorporated company, but that they are payable in notes current at the banks in Albany and Utica, and in current bank bills. This implies that they shall be paid in the notes or bills of incorporated companies; it has not been shown, nor is it to be believed, that the banks m Albany aná Utica would receive, as current at their counters, bills issued by private individuals.

That some of the bills are dated anterior to the act, forms no objection; the act is obviously retrospective, as regards the remedy, and was intended to afford relief to those persons who then held such notes or bills.

It is objected, that the holder of the bills cannot recover on the money counts, and that a demand of payment ought to have been specially averred. The act gives the holder a right to sue on these notes, and is silent as to the form of the action; but it declares that the possession of the notes shall be prima facie evidence, that the holder has paid value for the same. If the holder could maintain an action, by counting on the notes or bills, as the bearer thereof, he can, also, recover as for money lent, or money had and received, according to the decision of this Court in Pierce v. Crafts. (12 Johns. Rep. 90.) Under such a form of declaring, the plaintiff must prove every thing to entitle him to recover, with* out having averred the facts specially.

Judgment for the plaintiff, on the verdict.