Daily Democrat and news. [volume] (Davenport, Iowa) 1859-1864, 1860-11-15
lmpertass I.evsl Intellsresce.

Chicago.
Opinion Of the Court by Cation, Chief
Justice /:
The decree in this case will be affirm
ed for the reasons assigned by the Chief
Justice Of the Superior Court, when he
rendered the decree from which tbs ap-
peal is taken, whose opinion Is adopted
as the opinion OF this Count.
ODinion of Chief Justice wilson, Of the
Superior Coatrt
The complainant Is a corporation, Or
ganlzed under the General Banking
Law pi this State, passed in 1851, and
estsbli ned at Fairfield, in this State
On the 18th Of October, 1859, the de-
PENDANTS, Messrs. Adsit and Willard, be-
ing JOINT owners OF $500 in the notes Of
SAID complainant, caused them t. be
presented TO the President Of the Bank
by a Notary Public, AT the Bank, dunn &
business hours, and redemption demand
ed of the same in the legal coin OF the
United States. The President offered
to redeem the bill. one BY one, separate
ly, but refused TO redeem the packages
As one Obligation, aad lhereupon the No
,aiy protested the package Tor non-re-
dcmption.
The protested bills were presented to
the Auditor OF Pubic Accounts by the
defendants, whcreupon the Auditor gave
nolce to the President Of the complain
ant Eank to pay said bills, with interest,
and as required by law, and that the de-
fcndant, Ads.t, was about to sell ITS
stock, call in its circulation, etc. Com
pIainant filed bill, praying an injnnc-
ton.
One ground upon which the complain
ant insists for maintaining the injunc-
ton by decree making it perpetual is,
that the act OF 1857, amending the act
Of 1851, is unconstitutional, because it
was not submitted to the people.
1t is contcnded that as 10y the Consti-
tuition the original law was Submitted to
the people, and became a law 10y Their
approval, no law amending, or in any
manner affecting the corporations or
gained under it can be III force and OPP
GRAFTON witholt ike submission to aud
approval by the people.
That this position is not maintainable
has been recently decided 10y the Sn-
preme Court. III very able opinion by
the Chief Justice, and a although the
Court has EXPRESSED 10 opinion III rcla-
ton to other provisions Of the amenda-
tory acts, titan those involving the ques'
ton Def re them, they have decided tiiat
the acL o. 1851 is amendable by tue
Legislature without being submitted to
the people. II does not follow, howev-
er, that every amendm Mt the Leslsla-
tnIe may make Is constitutional, for II he
all other laws, they may embrace con,
sututlonaI and unc n titutional provis
ions.
The question, therefore, is, whether
the particular proyis on upon which the
claim OF the bill holders rests is uucon.
stitu,ona. The grievance OF tire com
plainant is that he was not allowed to re-
deem the bills presented seuarately, in
stead of redeeming them all at once as
a S ngle obligation.
SO far as | am advised, the uniform
custom in all well regulated banks is to
redeem bills presented together rs =
single obligation, and 1t is also the com
mon law rule, independent Of the stat
ute. This precise que-tlon arose ano
was decided in the case of the SuHoA
Bank as. Lincoln Bank, 3 Mason |
Judge Story, in his opinion, says: 81
has been imtimated that each bank bill
should have been separately presentc,
for payment, and separately paid. Bu
there is no foundation in law for tina
sng yestion. The holder had the RICH
to demand the whole at once as an ag
gregate sum, and the bank was boun(
to paw the whole ! hen, as there Wa
due demand, and no money to tn
amount paid, or rendered in payment
what ground can there be to say tina
the bank has not reflsed ("
No case has been cited, establishin.
different rule, and as the bank Cal
gain no legal advantage, but would b'
subjected to great Inconvenience an
trouble by adopting the other rule con
tended for by the complainant, this prsc
tice could subserve no purpose for tn
hank but to delay and harrass the bill
holders.
Any act of bank having this objec
in view has been repeatedly decided t
be illegal, and equivalent to a refusal t
redeem.
Suffolk Bank u.s. Lincoln Bank,
Mason /.
Hibbord as. CHenango Bank,
Cowdn So.
Gilbert Us. Nantucket Bank, In
l.. H. l57.
Ii this view is correct, then the pre-
vso complained of is merely dcclara,or
OF the common law, aud not ohnoXior
to the objection If UNCONSTITUTIONAL,
But assuming that at comnon4 Law
and at the time of the passage of .th
act Of 1851, it was the right OF ia
complainant, when bill holder d,
, manlcd he redemption OF a number ,
| bills together, to redeem them svparat,
: ~, "hat Mioh1 has been Gone 10 I'll
complainant by the proviso complaine
OF IA the act Of 1857? Does 1t d,
pivc him Of any night ve-ted by tt
c act oi 1891, OF does it confer any ne
G night upon the bill holders! Ciearl
not. ~ the act Of 1891, the banks ,
be organized under it were bound to !,
It deem their bulls IN lawful money OF IT.
). United States, when they were prescn