Bank of Commerce v. Humphrey
South Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from circuit court, Pennington county. Hon. William Gardner, Judge. Action on a promissory note. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant Humphrey appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion. . When a defect in the form of stating defenses is not called to the attention of the court it is held to be waived.
Read the full summary
Appeal from circuit court, Pennington county. Hon. William Gardner, Judge. Action on a promissory note. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant Humphrey appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion. . When a defect in the form of stating defenses is not called to the attention of the court it is held to be waived. Boone Code Pleading sec. 80; Truitt v. Baird, 12 Kan. 420; Joy v. Betzer 41 N. W. 575. A banker has a general lien dependent upon possession upon all property in his hands belonging to a customer for a balance due from such customer in the course of business. Comp. Laws, Sec. 4443;…
1Opinion of the CourtKellam, J.
The respondent, as plaintiff, brought this action to recover upon a promissory note signed by appellant and one Murphy. Appellant, Humphrey, answered separately, admitting the execution of the note, but alleging that he signed the note as surety for Murphy, and not otherwise, and that the respondent bank at all times knew of his relation thereto. The answer further alleges as follows: “That at the maturity of said note, and until this action was commenced, the said de-; fendant Murphy was the postmaster in the United States posG office in Grand Island, and did all of his banking business with…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Commercial Bank v. HughesNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- Strong v. . SproulNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Second Nat'l Bank v. HillIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
- Voss v. German American BankIllinois Supreme Court · 1876
- National Bank of Newburgh v. . SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Dillaway v. PetersonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1898