Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1889-09-04


on that bank 10 pay that note when IL
became due out Of funds on deposit
10 the makers credit i msintainei
that it was not. The Journal main
tanned that il was. And ! shall now pro-
coed TO show that the person who de
| cides" questions of law for the Journal
is as ignorant Of the laws OF this land as
such persons usually are.
In its issue Of July 3lst il says that it
bases It's decision "on the decision
of the Supreme Court OF the United
States in the case of Commercial Bank
against Hughes. reported IN II Wend:,
o." II this statement stood 10y itself
one would readily conceive 1t to he an
/ inadvertence but in its date OF August
18th il says: "Our answer was based
on the decision of the Supreme Court OF
the United States in Commercial Bank
against Hughes, II Wend., %. Now,
the Supreme Court of the United states
has never in its history considered or de-
cided any case by the name OF Com
mcrcial Bank against Hughes" No per
son with any name resembling "Wend
has ever reported decisions for tho Su-
preme Court Of the United States.
There is d reporter named Wendell, who
has reported for the courts OF New
York.
In the JournGPs issue Of July Goth 1t
refers to "Byles on Bills, section -.
/ Byles's work is not written in sections,
and there is therefore no "section IL
in his work. One had, therefore, as well
look for a needle in hay stack as Tor
what he pretcnds to quote from Byles by
his reference.
You NAV thinl, this Of no importance,
but as etraws show which way the wind
blows, such matters show to q lawyer
| that the writer is no lawyer. And tins
/ is not surprising There is no more lg-
norant but pretentious bar in the world
1 than tho bar OF the city Of New York. L
DO not mean to say that they are lgno-
rant Of their petty code of procedure,
under which a lawycrling has a night TO
recover go costs from his adversary
whenever he fails in motion for his
own pocket. They are thoroughly yersed
in that. But they conceive the world to
be bounded by the limits Of New York,
and that there is nothing in the law ont
side of those limits. As an evidence
They have three pondcrous volumes
called "The Revised Statutes OF New
York, which purport to give the Con
stitution of the United States, with It's
amendments. This makes the thirteenth
amendment read as follows
"Slavery. being Incompatible with free
| government IL foreyc- prohibitcl IN he United
! Sistes, and involuntary serVtude SHAH DO per-
| mitiei only 8s a punishment ior crime
The thirteenth amendment OF the Con
stitution reads as follows;
"Noithor slavery nor involuntary sorvitu1e.
| except as punish ment for crime. whereof the
| party shall have been duly convicted, snall exist
| within tho nited states or any place subject 10
| their jurisdiction"
OF course l do not mean to say that
every LAWYER at the New York bar IS an
/ ignoramus und pretonder. There are
many Of the most brilliant and cultivated
| intellects in the world at that bar. /
speak Of the bar at large as separated
| from these-the "New York lawyer"
The only point raised and discussed
| by me was whether making q note paya-
| bic at bank was equivalent to an order
upon the bank to pay that note out of
the derositor's funds. The JourH0i now
SAYS that it never decided that it was.
BIT in its issue of July 10th it uses the
following language:
"What We said was that where note Il mado
| payable NJ q bank that IL sufficient authority.
| ana the bank not only may pay IL but must pay
II II the account IS good, aud charge 1t TO such
| account"
In its issue Of July 3lst it says:
"His" meaning mel FIRST reason s that
| making q note payable at a given bank "a not "a
command 10 that bank 70 pay 1t. but IN the cases
wo cited tue lurist- SAID it WAS sufficient authOn-
~ 20 govern the action OF The BANK, ana No pre-
| fer their opinion - that of Mr.. Royal
And the whole article Of July 3lst is
directed to establishing the proposition
that making a note payable Mt bank IS
| q direction to the bank to pay 1t. 1t
therefore decided unequiyocally aud
outright that the bank had the right and
was bound to pay the note. In its issue
of August 18th it says that il never ode
cided any such thing, and admits that
| where there is no custom prevailing out
of which q contract to that effect might
| be inferred, the bank has no such
authority, and it refers to the most re-
cent decision on the subject-the case OF
Grisson against the Commercial Bank
decided by the Supreme Court of Ten
nessee IN February, 1889, and reported
in the Tenth Southwestern Reporter. at
page IA, which is q complete and lumi
nous discussion Of the whole subject and
a distinct and authoritative decision that
making a note payable mt bank is not
all authority to the bank TO pay It. L
quote you tho syllabus Of this case:
"a noie executed by the dcpositor Of a bank
| and payable at the bank Is not equivalent ~
| check. and tho bank has no authority TO pay
such note 70 "a third party IN Tie absence az
usage or Of Instructions from the maker TO that
| effect
Now. let no one be misled by the use
of this word "usagc." To have any Of
feet the usage must be known to the de-
positor. The Court considers and passes
upon this very point. 1t says page
! 77Gl:
at well settled that, 70 be binding, a Gus
tom must bo general rs 70 place, and not o. con
| fined 10 any particular bank or banks IL must
| be certain qnd uniform, and thcrc must be
! reasonable ground 10 suppose that lie custom
! was known 10 bO,h parties % The contract, as IL
i- from This suppositon hat the parties are pre-
| sumed u have contracted with reference 10 IL,
citing a number of authorities.
his u Ole Vi iilt lliOnh NsA4uhiiN Nf'FNo
that | know of in the law; and as the
matter that we have in hand has excited
the deepest interest Of bankers all over
the country you would be well repaid to
print it as a matter of news. If You do
not, it would pay the bankers OF this city
to raise a fund TO pay for having 1t
printed in your columns.
You may thipk that / have made a
very savage attack upon the JourHGt Of
Commerce, and admit that have, but
l am justified i'll doing so. l wrote them
a courteous, respectful discussion of the
subject, which they published in their
issue OF July 3lst, with most sneering
and contemptuous comment upon the
| same. Further they have not treated
me fairly. When this issue appeared |
saw plainly that the writer was discuss
ing one question whilst was discussing
another. saw be was discussing the
rights Of parties as they grew out OF
| 4 ,,rt.. Ia.