The New York herald., 1876-08-18
IMPORTANT DECISIONS.


THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECIDING
ON MATTERS OF CONSIDERABLE INTEREST TO
business MEN.
WASHINGTON. August II, 1876
The following decided in the Supreme
Court here to-day
PAnoL CONTRACT TO ACCEPT BILL OF EXCHANGE
No. 33.-William II. scudder, plaintiff III error, VS.
Tho Union National Bank OF Chicago In error to the
Circuit Court for the Northern District OF Illinois The
only question the is presented upon tho
objection 10 the admission OF evidence, and TO the
charge Of the Judge Upon tho merits the case Is ihis
The plaintiff below sought to recover from the firm Of
Henry Amcs Co., OF ST Louis, Mo-, the amount of
bill OF exchange of which the following is a copy,
viz: :.
Pay TO the of the Union National bank
To Mcssrs HENRY ASrs Co.. 81 Louis, Mo.
BY tho direction OF Ames Co, Loland 4 Har-
bach had bought for them and on the 7th OF July,
1871, shipped to them at ST. Louis 800 barrels OF
pork, gave their check the Union Bank TO Han
cock, the seller OF the same Tor $4,000. Leland 4
Harbach then drew th, bill in question, and sent tho
same by their clerk TO the Union Bank uhe plaintiff
below TO be placed to their credit Tho bank declined
to receive the bill unless accompanied by the bill Of
lsdlng other security Ihc clerk returned aud
ported accordingly to Leland IIarbacn. One OF the
frm then directed the clerk TO the bank and
say that Mr. Scuddcr. OF the firm Of Amcs Il Co,
tine drawecs) was then IN Chicago ana had authorized
the drawing OF the draft that !. was drawn against
bach for them and duly shipped 10 ;hom. The clerk
returned to the bank and made this statement TO It's
that tho bill authorized by The defendant,
discounted the same, and the proceeds were placed to
the credit o Leland Il Harbach. Out OF tho proceeds
the check gwen to Hancock for the pork paid by
the bank The direction to inform the bank that Mr..
Scudder was IN Chicago and had authorized tho draw
ing OF the draft made 10 the presence and in the
hearing OF Mr. scudder and without objection by him.
The point was raised in various forms upon The ad
mission of evidence and upon the charge OF the judge
whether, upon this state OF facts. the rm OF Amcs Il
Co., the defendants, were liable 10 the bank Tor tho
amour, OF the BILL The jury under the charge OF tho
/ nd no IN n ulb indy.
entered upon that verdict that the present writ
OF is brought The question discussed in the
appellants brief and properly MS II the direction to the
clerk had been gwen by Scuddcr in person The jury
authorized to consider the direction in his name
in bis presence and hearing without objection oy him.
maue by himself
The objection relied on is that tho transaction
amounted, at most to paro promise to accept blll
OF exchange then existence IL Is insisted that such
promise does not bind the defendants. Tho SUIT is to
upon the ALLEGED acceptance the refusal
To accept Being IN the State of Illinois and the contract
having been made IN that State. the judgment TO be
given according TO the law OF that State The law OF
the expected place OF performance, should there
difference yields the lex tori and the lex loci con
tractus Matters bearing upon the execution, the in
tcrprc, alton and tho validity OF contract are deter
mined by tho law OF the place where the contract
mace. Matters connected with it's performance are
regulated by the law prevailing at the place OF per.
formancc Matters respecting the remedy. such the
bringing of suits admssabllty OF evidence statutes of
limitation, depend upon the law Of the place where no
suit rs brought.
A careful examination of the well considered dc.
cisons OF this country and Of England will these
posons There statute ol the State o Illinois that
requires acceptance OF bill OF exchange to be in
writing or that prohibits paro promise Ia accept a
bill OF exchange On the contrary, parol acceptance
and paro promise 10 accept are valid IN that state.
and tue decisions Of Its highest court hold that parol
promise to accept bill Is an acceptance thereof IL
this ue So no question Of Jurisdiction conflict
laws arises The contract to acccp; not only mado
IN Illinois. but the bill was then aud there actually
accepted in Illinois as perfectly as II Mr. scudder had
written acceptance its face and signed thereto
the OF the firm Tho contract to accept the bill
was not to be performed In Missouri IL had already
by the promise been performed in Illinois. The con-
,rsc, to ray was indeed, performed Missouri,
bu, that different contract from thai OF accept.
ancc.
Justice II unit delivered the opinion
BAyKING srIr.
No 19a-rhe First National Bank Of Charlotte,
plaintiff in error, vs. The National Exchange Bank OF
hallmark In error TO tho Court of Appcals of ;hc
State OF Maryland
The question presented for our consideration iu this
rs whether national bank, orRanizcd under tho
national banking act, may, IN fair and bona nde CON-
promise OF contested CLAIM against H. growing out OF
legitimate banking transaction. pay larger sum
than would have been cxactcd in satisfaction oi the
demand so as 10 obtain by the arrangement transfer
OF ccraiV siocks IN railroad and other oipora IONS IL
being honestly believed ht the time that nv turning
the stocss INTO money. under more favorable crcum-
stances han then existed. loss which would other
wise accrue irpm the transaction might be aycrcd or
diminished such, according I, The nniing below, was
The state Of facts out OF which this suit has arisen
That finding is conclusive upon
A national bank 'oxerclsc by its board of di-
rcctors or duly authorized officers agents. subject
law, all such incidental powers as shall DO necessary
TO carry on tho business of banking by discount,ng
and negotiating Iromssory notes, drafts bilis of
change and other evidences oi debt by receiving de-
posts, by buying and selling exchange, and bull.
Ton, by ioanng money personal security and by OBJ
tanning. issuing ana circulating notes. t.cv. STAT
sec 5lH, par. |. Ii Stat, l0l, sec. 81
Authority IS thus gwen 10 transact such banking
business as Is specified and all incidental powers
TO carry II are granted. These powers
required TO meet all the legitimate demands uf
the authorized business and to enable bank TO
duct It's Affairs within the general OF It's charter
safely and pruicnty. This necessarily implies the
right of bank TO incur liabilities IN the regular
| OF It's business well TO become the creditor
OF Others Its own Obligations must 10 mot and debts
due to II collected secured. The power TO adopt
reasonable and appropriate measures for these pur-
poses Is In incident TO the power to incur tho liability
or become the creditor. Obligations may be assumed
that result unfortunately. Loans or discounts may be
made that cannot bc met at maturity. Comrrom
results Of this condition OF things These compro