, 1861-11-26
The "CufrencYs, Question,

AA0 %A@V "a 1AAAs4&GF Vs. hQ8 f&aTlu6 BA0K,
which has been On trial several days In the
Superior Court Of this city, before the Hon.
George ManieTe, Judge Of the Circuit Court,
who presided in the place Of the Hon. Van e.
higgins, by an arrangement between them
for 81. exchapge Of duties during the trial, was
finished yesterday.
The action grew out Of an account between
the parties, which accrued during the months
Of April and May last. The plaintiff being
banker at Macomb, in this State, remitt-d to
the defendants, for collection and credit OF the
plaintiff, drafts, &C., and also other PERSONS
who had dealings with the pla'=tif, deposited
with defendants, to his credit, considerable
sums of money, and the plaintiff drew upon
ard received money from The defendants,
leaving balance, as claimed to be due, Of
$15,97l.22,
The defense set up was, that the funds re-
ceiyed by the defendants were not money, but
deprecated Illinois bank notes that the de-
ftndants acted as agents In making the col
1ections, and as such took such bank notes at
the risk Of the plaintiff; and that, having Of.
fered to pay him In such bank notes when he
presented his check, on the 21st Of June LAST,
they we're not liable in the action-or, If lis
bic, only to the amount Of the value of such
bsuk notes st the day last mentioned. It Was
also claimed, that by virtue Of An agreemeas
mentioned below in the opinion of the Court,
the plaintiff WAS bound to receive such bark
noteB.
The trial occupied about four days, and WAS
closely contested on all the various points
which could be raised between banks and
their depositoF, growing out Of the disturbed
condition of the currency last Spring.
Elaborate arguments, both on the law aud
facts, were made BY Messrs. Joseph E. Gary
aad George F. Bailey for the plaintiffs, and
Messzs. s. IT. Fuller and Thomas Ho5ne for
the defendants.
Tie jury rendered verdict for the plaintiff
for FIG .a75.s3, being the full amount claimed
By plaintiff, with interest from the time of
demand.
The Court charged the jury IS follows:
CHARGE.
a depostt commonly signifies bailment Of pro-
perty ftr cuetody Nithuut compensation the titIe
remaining wi The depositor and the deposItarJ
acqu1,iEg 20 title in ths thing deposited but onlJ
the depositer is entitled to re nrn Of tie spscdc
chsttel On demsnd. and to action to recover its
| possession when wrongfnlly withheld. AZ = can
| stolen CT destroyed, while in the custody OF tie
dePosttary, and without gross Or wifo1 negligence
| on big part, The loss falls on the depoal!of.
loan is money, wheat Q! other property, and It IL
| delivered to the depo, itary for use or consump-
.!on. The 1aw implies contract to return, not the
identical thing deposited or 1snt, but an equtv2-
| lent OF The same kind nature or quality. In such
cases the title to the thing depoefed vests In the
rieht Of he deposition u to . TetuEn in lind 81
value. and this right is Tot impaired bJ reason Of
the eueeequent loss Or destruction Of the proper.
sneh Is ordinarily lie feisttoa Implied by Law
fetm the dealings between banker and his Gus
them varying iSeif 1iahts. Them The money, % c1ecsss Z
or bills which may be the subject Of the deposit,
become the property OF the bank and the deposl-
et1oyed, OF il they 6econa Of no value T b. reason
Of ftubseqneat depreciation, the bank must sustain
abe lots.. The deposttos's legal title In the de.
| IL retolyeu into q mere chose In action or claim
against the bank for the value Of the deposit nsu
ay fed b. the credit given, ss IL the case of y
posit With = hank Is deRomtnated g!a1utsous
loan payable to the depositor on demand.
5ufs to consider a, WIS. Wss she nature o1 t6e i
rela1ioa attsing ont Of the dealings between
parties, as Disclosed By The e,ide.ee' Was il the
| ordinary relktton Of customer with hit hsnEer
Ifeo, then whst was the subject matter Of the de
| post + Vas 1t moIey, or currency. or something
| ere! AKA uffI, Is 70 LIS IetAt401 Vi pAHkel anC
Or this point the Court 1ustruets the jury:
That If they fEd from the evtd snce that tbs dc
fentsnt was enrag In bAnkiag, and In receiving
| e, neral dspoeiss from its customers; that tht
| plaint,fr as an interior banker kept deposit &C
cuuut with it and depo tied deafts. checks ant
currency to hie own credit, to be drawn agatnt
b. him from time to time, IN accordance with tn
mage Of banks; that the moneys TINS deposttet
vere according to like rsage. mingled sud inter
mixtd with the money Of other depositors ane
u.ed By the defendast IN the course OF Its
then The relation implied by Law is that Of bante
AID cuets mer OF debtor and creditor aud the u
to :he currency OF money deposited vested IN th'
| defendant Aud IN the Rbsence OF any epeciA at
ra1 kemt1t or underas Anding varying the rights o
The parties. the subject Of The deposit rem AIMS
the 1itk Of the defendant
: | II this relation is found to have existed. tn
1nty thon,d next inquire into the n4ture aut
sntitcr of the depoeit- Was it moaey or cur
1eht bank bi is. or deprcciatrd bills Of Illfnoi
I ! ph = circulating 1t the time ss money! II tn
. lat1f. then wese these bills received on dep d,
g noIey or curretc$ to be accsnnted for o1
cematu IN Ike current funds money! o
we're tneS eceised deprecated bills nonsia.
tpuD n agfet ment eIp1eseed or Implied III It sh
shnp}d Re accounted iar IN tdenticaltv lixa biii
Of the Illinois bspkx. whether currenS or uncur
;. r.ut 1T The time OF demandf n de rrmin1n
q fis question the jury should Inquire iutn ID
, tenrte oi d+altng between the pattiea tbs e,at
8 xnd crLd1ien Of the currency It the tim tt
= dtpoetls were ulsde, the nature aud Talue