Bank of the United States v. Sill
Supreme Court of Connecticut
IN ERROR. Pursuant to the advice given by this Court, at the last term, a respondeas ouster was awarded; and the cause was tried before the superior court, October term, 1822, on the plea of non-assumpsit: when the jury returned a special verdict, containing the following statement of facts.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. Pursuant to the advice given by this Court, at the last term, a respondeas ouster was awarded; and the cause was tried before the superior court, October term, 1822, on the plea of non-assumpsit: when the jury returned a special verdict, containing the following statement of facts. On the 1st of January, 1817, the defendants, at Philadelphia, made and issued their promissory note, commonly called a bank bill, signed by William Jones, their president, and countersigned by Jonathan Smith, their principal cashier, promising to pay to C. S. West, or bearer, on demand, one hundred…
1Opinion of the Court
Peters. J.
The plaintiffs in error contend, 1. That the facts alleged and found, are not a sufficient foundation for the admission of secondary evidence, to supply the want of a profert. 2. That the loss or destruction of the bill proceeded from the voluntary act of the defendant in error. 3. That the plainti*111ffs in error are not liable, in any event, after the publication of their determination not to pay “ cut notes,” unless all the parts are produced.
As to the first exception, it is a well settled rule, that in declaring upon simple contracts, a profert is not necessary; and its omission is…
2Cited by12 opinions
- New England Savings Bank v. Bedford Realty Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
- Forbes v. MarshSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1843
- Bagley v. Administrators of McMickleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- Gibbs v. PotterIndiana Supreme Court · 1906
- Woicicky v. AndersonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1920
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.