Townsends v. Bank of Racine
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL PROM RACINE CIRCUIT COURT. The action was commenced by filing a declaration, which contained the common money counts, and a special count, as follows: “Edwin Townsend, John G-. Townsend, Walker L. Bean, and William E. Burlock, partners in business, and doing business under the name, firm and style of Townsend, Bean & Burlock, plaintiffs in this suit by Butler and Cary, their attorneys, complain of the Bank of Racine, a corporation organized under the laws of the State…
Read the full summary
APPEAL PROM RACINE CIRCUIT COURT. The action was commenced by filing a declaration, which contained the common money counts, and a special count, as follows: “Edwin Townsend, John G-. Townsend, Walker L. Bean, and William E. Burlock, partners in business, and doing business under the name, firm and style of Townsend, Bean & Burlock, plaintiffs in this suit by Butler and Cary, their attorneys, complain of the Bank of Racine, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Wisconsin, defendants in this suit, by filing and serving a declaration in pursuance of the statute authorizing the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Whiton, C. J.
We think there can be no doubt that the refusal of the bank to redeem its bills on the 20th of December, 1856, was, prima facie, a failure of the bank. We are also of opinion that the payment made for the draft, if made in the bills of a bank which had failed, was no payment. The authorities which were cited by the appellants at the argument, seem fully to sustain this position : 2 Greenlf. Ev., § 522; Ontario Bank vs. Lightbody, 13 Wend. 104; Fogg vs. Sawyer, 9 N. H. R., 365; Gilman vs. Peck, 11 Vt. R., 516. It follows, as we think, that upon proving these *194facts to…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Burdick v. BriggsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1860
- Harris v. Hanover Nat. BankDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1883