, 1861-11-26

basis 81 their mutual dealings rit ! esch othar.
On this point the Court tnstruets the jury tnat
Eere made IN Illinois baaE bs psslioe earent
st the time In Ill business Transactions O. money,
atped snd credited S e dseaRdsst t6n tae
hank bils ea!Fent st the time q tha da@aad, %
count for tpede when deposited, and Subsequent
1ybeeane entirely dlseredIted and greatly depre-
the payment or tender Of bank notes currsnt ii
al the measure Of the p1afntit's damages IN this
lime of demand, WITH interest thereon tod to date.
| And If no bank notes were then In circulation as
Money the e. became r ans0n1e for The
| money IL meds payable In particular thing, the
contract can Only be discharged in the Identical
Sotb'he eise cal ptS b substituted i'A' - A4'
It n4st therefore , be manifest to The ju5y that
sp ne0n
| corning it whether the deposit was made aud ac-
| cepted as currency, on the basis OF money and
properly 10 be accounted for IN ike Eind and quail
| T., rather than IN money. The law will allow par-
70 a T efsf atae5 T bf
pie precuded t6eze parties nom dealing viii eaeh
or as currency. II the deposits were Intended to Be
reciytd as currency, the equivalent oi money, and
low their nominal value nd hare aiaee gone out
contracts ard msre inadequ1cy Of Consideration
Is neTer defence to them, unless 20 great as to
4sfe q sH fne in { ess 5 h oss tpss e
nerchardize, to be repaid in k1nd or value, then
the law viii enforce the agreement, and not I'M
Jet Of the deposit II ascertained, then the aw vii
Imply promise to psy in kind OF an equivalent In
n
I'd not il eonethipe elss @ q different nature o.
a1e 9sue Il nd
deposited, mnst be delivered under the contract;
an nen h It, ~ ary not asa h 5 +.
that By the course Of delaying between the par
ties, OF By the1z express agreement the deposits
accepted t. be paid BY the defendant in the same
kind Of bills without regard to their value cur
rsncy, OF In money at the time Of demand, than
money ot an a7erage lot q such hnois T 6anE % Bills
sominal amount due the plaintiff, with interest At
As part Of the evidence tending to establish
ne character Of the arrangements ard relations
osfWeea %; ne parties, PAPER signed by the plain
IN: and in me following words, has been given in
evidence. rfz:
. CHICAGO, April %, 1851.
We, the undersigned, citizens aud business
..currency in Payment Of debts and IN tie eeseral
transaction Of bueineas during The present VA
the notes Of al the banks Of this State at pre-.
banEsrs ef hts city provided the bankers named
10 This is attached the following instrument,
| eTs therein named:
<. I'm accordance Hith the above, We, the undsr-
'.slened bankers. do hereby ratify and confirm the
| agreement therein expressed"
Amops the bankers referred to are two inco,-
poI1tsd companies and their assent is expressed
t il claimed by the plaintiff 1hat If these officers
bad no authority, express OF implied, to execute
The agree ment the plsiRtif Is lot bound by the
This is the LAM and telJ1e any wei st as evidence
thau be given to the ag.:emEnts il determining
the basis q the dealings between the parties the
wss f1gued by authority Of sald compauies IN
less s1gned BY all the parties named it is not in
.1 foIee a. against the plaintif and the defend.
Il the 1ur3 fEd that no express authority existed
.nd that the only evidence froG1 which IN au-
tutiona continued to do business with eucf hsnE
notes IS SIC described IN the said agreement in the
came manner as they had done before, then eaeh
unless the jury shall further find that the making
5nties Of he officers signing It. they viii reject it
altogether from their consideration.
II the 1azy find that the instrument was duly e1-
ecnted by the parties, then its operation Is By
Way 9fesscgpsh as faE as third Rarties were IL
not material whether 1t .sas actually signed by the
defendant as veil as BY the plaintif, In order to
give he defendant l1sht to claim under it. But
must be proved that the defendant dealt with the
plaintiff solely in reference to and on faith of it.
But il the defendant did not rely upon It. and its
dealings with the plaintiff had no reference to It,
then The plaintiff is not estopped from alleging
the want Of mutua1ity or binding obligation of tbs
aame, and the jury should disregard It.
But tie evidence in this case may show that tho
business relations between the parties were Of
tWo-fold character. Viz: That Of principal and
agent K1th Ietpect 70 the checks and drafts aeut
by the plaintiff Il collection, and Of depositary
OF the moneys after they were collected by the de-
fendant. II the dsfer dant was thus employed and,
1s agent received bills and drafts for collection
then the law imposed upon the defend 4nt the duty
Of making such collections In money unless au-
thor1zed to collect the came in the deprecated
| currency then In circulation az money. Such au-
'thor1ty may be implied from the cause Of deaI1ug
| between the parties. Il the jury find that snch
| author1ty WAS lVen, and that the defendant was
instructed to collect In such bills and put the same
to the plaintiffs credit as depositor, and did 30,
then the liability of the defendant is that Of de-
poxna1y Ct the plaintiff g funds, and is to be as
e1gtes already stated. In other words, the Ia
left before the jury precisely as il the defendant
had received no paper for collection and as II tbs
several deposits had been made In Illinois cur
reIcy by the plaintiff and not through the medium
& collections. That il to say, were the deposita
made as currency and trested as money In the
dealings Of the parties. in depreciated bills
such IS already sufficiently set forth and defined
In these instructions!