Miller v. Bank of Orleans
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Ilf ERROR. . Error to the District Court for the City and County of Philadelphia. This was an action of assumpsit brought by the Bank of Orleans against Miller and Philip Green, partners, under the firm of Miller & Green, in which a case was stated for the opinion of the Court, to be considered as a special verdict, as follows: “ This action is brought upon a bill of exchange for one thousand and fourteen dollars seventy cents, drawn in New Orleans, dated February 28th,…
Read the full summary
Ilf ERROR. . Error to the District Court for the City and County of Philadelphia. This was an action of assumpsit brought by the Bank of Orleans against Miller and Philip Green, partners, under the firm of Miller & Green, in which a case was stated for the opinion of the Court, to be considered as a special verdict, as follows: “ This action is brought upon a bill of exchange for one thousand and fourteen dollars seventy cents, drawn in New Orleans, dated February 28th, 1837, .payable six months after date, and accepted by the defendants, (Miller & Green,) * payable at the Bank of North…
1Per curiam
While the defendant kept funds in the bank to meet the particular demand, he prevented interest, the deposit being equivalent to a tender. But when it was withdrawn and used by him, a case arose which very much resembles the Commonwealth v. Crevor, (3 Binney, 121,) in which a sheriff who had deposited money in contest, pursuant to an agreement betwixt the claimants, but'had subsequently withdrawn and used it, was held liable to the successful party for interest from the time it was taken out of bank. Even tendered money, subsequently used, bears interest; for a plea of tender without ‘ always…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Fasholt v. ReedSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1827
3Cited by2 opinions
- Emlen v. Lehigh Coal & Navigation Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1864
- Sharp v. WyckoffNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1885