The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1894-01-17

1s Because there evidence to show that there was
sufficient amount of money credit of Jervey Co. to
the time it presented Plaintiffs proof showed
that when this check there in bank $6 Brief
folio 12 That Jervey drew another check this Bank be-
tween the date this check drawn and the time it
Exceptions and 8.
R. s. sparlman plaintiffs Witness allowed to testify
AGAINST defendants objection Jervey Co. had $6O on depos
in Rank when the check sued on drawn folio r. He
was also testify to the contents Of letter written by
himself to plaintiff agants defendants objection folios IT, 49,
The Bank furnished Jervey by the Bank was the
evidence the amount of money to their credit The money
was entered by Bank and delivered and accepted
by Jervey this book had been produced would have
shown that balance insufficient to pay this cheek spark
sad he had drawn another check before this
but could state the amount folio 10 The amount as
shown by Banks $500 January h and another
check for January 7h All this should and doubtless
would have appeared Jervey Co.'S Bank book II produced
not claimed that the book conusive it may be shown to
be incorrect this done it is the best evidence
Exceptions and o.
These exceptions relate the ruling of the Presiding Judge
to testimony offered explain why the transaction Jervey
with the entered two accounts r. Sparkman
plaintiffs witness testified that it was done as maer OF conV
nience for both PARTIES and not change the liability of the
ties at ALL fo 81 Mr. Greene the cashier testified that the
merely for and ne
one account os g. 49, All this testimony was ruled out by
his Honor the Presiding Judge See brief same numbers
These entries of Jervey are subject
planation by oral testimony.
An entry in Book given depoor may be explained contra
dicted by oral testimony.
Branch " Dawson 36 Minn..193
Am. and Eng. Enc. Law VOL 2 pg. 102.
was not them draw from of these accounts
for the use of the other, fol. 49,
| Rank hook is open to explanation by paro
Muse v. Banks Vol. l. pg. sol. Sec. 290
The accounts were not separately book of Jervey
Co., fols. %, 3O
:. Exception =.
The testimony admitted against defendants objection, and
plains of in this exception to matters occurring in Jervey
Co.'S office between themselves and their bookkeepe ana OF
which the Bank had no knowledge, folios 52, 53.
Exception 8.
This execution taken to charge his Honor the Pred
ing Judge that the testimony goes to show that there
were no the cotton account to pay amounts
ing on the merchandise account" See BRIEF fol- 5S The est
mony of Mr. Greene the Cashier folio 3d. and Mr. DAVIS the
folio 49, shows just the of what his Honor
stated Mr. said Jervey Co. had drawn from one ac-
help the other that they had drawn from the cotton
and put other and had given checks the cot
ton Mr. said that this done to the extent of
or 100000 at tme and that it not unusual thing
His Honor should have left this fact to the jury
| Executions 10, III, IL, IL, Is, 10 and 20.
The charge OF his Honor found brief at oo 5s 50 and
made the ground appeal by the O 11h and 18th
ons his refusal to charge defendants sd 4th and 9th re-
quests CHARGE and his comments on the 3d request oos 3D.
and 6 are grounds of appeal the H. 49, Is and ex-
ceptons.
Whether there deposit accounts was qeston
of fact of intention of the parties and should have been submit
ted TO the iury testimony shows that the division in the
was only convenience says 1t was not
made to change liabilities of the parties folios &c. 81 Mr.
Greene said they consider the accounts different folio
That it was merely convenience and he considered one
count oos g. and Davis both said that Jervey Co.
would draw from account for of oios 30 ana 49
! All money deposited belonged to same parties
The account which his speaks the merchandise
count was entered simply ervey Co., folio S and was gen.
er supply Even there two deposit accounts the
Bank had the right to refuse this check ls Because the
amount to the credit of Jervey Co.'s account was only s45
LESS than of the check and 2nd Because Jevey
Co. owed the Bank % past due notes and checks
The Bank obliged to make partial payments if the funds
of the drawee not sufficient to pay check In
m See note partial payment in Am. and Eng Enc OF Law
Vol 8. page 2ls.
Morse on Banks Vol q Sec. 44e page 7a3.
The Bank had to hold the balance the credit OF ervey Co.,
and apply it to the debt due by said firm.
Money deposited general deposit belongs to the Bank and
the relation Bank and customer that OF debtor and
creditor Am. and Eng Enc of Law, VOL 2, page 81.
Bank lien all moneys securities &C., OF depositor III
its possession for the of the general balance.
AM and Eng. Enc of Law, Vol. 2, page g.
Morse on Banks. Vol. 1, Sec. 324, page $685.
Where depotor keeps several accounts with his Banker
az for example general account loan account and dis
count account all being in fact kept by him In his own right
nothing short of distinct contract to that effect will
Rank securities