President of the Union Bank v. Knapp
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Assumpsit for money had and received. Pleas, the geu eral issue and the statute of limitations. The defendant had been accustomed to make deposits in the Union Bank, and this action was brought on the ground that the bank had by mistake credited him with 1000 dollars more than he had deposited, and that in consequence he had overdrawn to that amount.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit for money had and received. Pleas, the geu eral issue and the statute of limitations. The defendant had been accustomed to make deposits in the Union Bank, and this action was brought on the ground that the bank had by mistake credited him with 1000 dollars more than he had deposited, and that in consequence he had overdrawn to that amount. At the trial the plaintiffs offered in evidence the leger and journal of the bank ; which were objected to by the defendant as incompetent evidence, but the judge permitted them to go t0 the jury- It appeared by the leger, that the items of cash…
1Opinion of the Court
Putnam J.
delivered the opinion of the Court. We are in the first place to consider, whether the books of the bank were competent evidence.
It was said by Lord Kenyon, in Cooper v. Marsden, 1 Esp. R. 1, “ That the rule of evidence was clear, that entries in the books of bankers or persons keeping books respecting their trade or business, could only be proved by the clerks who had made the entries and he rejected evidence of the handwriting of the clerk, who was in India.
It seems to have been taken for granted, in that case, that the books of bankers were to be received in evidence, if properly…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Nicholls v. WebbSupreme Court of the United States · 1823
- Mandeville and Jamesson v. WilsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1809
- Nichols v. GoldsmithNew York Supreme Court · 1831
- Moore v. HitchcockNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Sentney v. OvertonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1816
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Fox v. PatachnikoffAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1912
- Rodeman v. SmithMissouri Court of Appeals · 1922