Essex County herald. [volume] (Guildhall, Vt.) 1873-1964, 1873-11-15
A Legal Question.


We clip the following from the Pitts
burg LRlC Adviser, as it will be Of in
terest to all, in legal point of view
Several weeks prior to the suspension
of Jay Cooke & Co., a party deposited
with them a certain amount Of money,
for which a certificate of deposit was
given payable on return OF this GER
tifcate t0ith per cent. interest,"" The
depositor presented it at a country
National Bank, received the amount in
currency and Endorsed the certificate.
The bank held the certificate as an in
terest fund without presentation until
subsequent to the suspension of the
firm alluded to. Was the bank, in
order to hold the indorser responsible,
obliged to present the certificate at once,
or was it optional with the bank?
The question whether the bank should
have, at once, presented the certificate
of deposit in order to hold the indorser,
is a secondary one. The main question
is whether the indorser is at all liable
that is, whether his signature amounted
to an Endorsement with all its conse-
quences, or whether it was merely an
assignment of his right to the money
deposited. This is answered by finding
whether certificate of deposit is nego-
table or not. This has been decided
in the negative in Pennsylvania, in
Patterson VS.. Poindexter W. & S. 227
land approved in Charnley VS.. Dulles,
8 W. & s. 353). In that case a certif
cate of deposit was issued by the Mis-
sissippi Union Bank of Jackson, Miss.
and read as follows
"I hereby certify that G. s. Tarply
has deposited in this bank, payable
twelve months from LIST of May, 1889
with five per cent. interest till due, pei
annum, three thousand siz hundred anc
ninety-one dollars and sixty three cents
for use of r. Patterson & Co., and pay
able only to their order upon the return
of this certificate" Signed,
G. W. CLIFTON, Ass. Cashier,
The Endorsement was: Pay Edward
York, ESQ.,, or order r. B. Patterson &
Co., without recourse to me.
e. YoRKE.
Chief-Justice Gibson decided tina
the instrument was not promissor,
note, that "for purposes of transfer
merely it was payable to order; fol
purposes of commercial responsibility
it was not negotiable. But "that il
was special agreement to pay the de
post to any one who should presen
the certificate and the depositor's or
der" 4. H
The contents of the certificate in thi
case not being given full, we hav,
quoted literally the one upon whicl
the above decision is based, but believ
that, from the few words given in tn
questions, payable on return of thi
certificate with per cent. interest,
there is not much, if any, differenc
between them and in that case th
indorser is not liable, but the bank ha
to suffer the loss, if any.
AS the question may possibly no1
arise also in other localities, we ma
state that the above is not the geners
law of this country. In Mississippi
Illinois, Georgia, Connecticut, Me-
York, California and Iowa, it has Zee
decided that certificate of deposit
in effect a promissory note, and accord
: ingly, an indorser of such instrumen
) in these States would be liable. Thi
: question, as far as we know, has nc
been decided in Virginia or w. Virgin
la, but we think that, should such cas-
come before their courts, they will TO
q low the Pennsylvania decision, as
, stands more to reason to construe
T certificate of deposit as special col
a tract, than to class it as a promissor
note, it wanting the essential featul
g of promissory note-a direct and III
qualified promise to pay.