Springfield Marine & Fire Insurance v. Tincher
Illinois Supreme Court
This was an action of assumpsit, by defendants in error against plaintiff in error. Declaration is on the common (money) counts. Plea, non-assumpsit.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, by defendants in error against plaintiff in error. Declaration is on the common (money) counts. Plea, non-assumpsit. Trial by the court, and judgment for the plaintiffs below (defendants in error) for the sum of $730.44. A bill of exceptions was taken, from which it appears, that on the trial of the cause, plaintiffs below read in evidence a draft or bill of exchange, of which the following is a copy: Springfield Marine and Fire Insurance Company. $610.30. Mo. 19466. Springfield, April 30th, 1861. Currency.—Pay to the order of Tinoher & English, six hundred…
1Opinion of the CourtBreese, J.
We are unable to distinguish this case from that of the Chicago Marine and Fire Insurance Company v. Keiron, 17 Ill. 501, and Marine Bank of Chicago v. Chandler, 27 Ill. 525, except in this, that in the first case, the certificate of deposit was for “ Illinois currency,” and in the other, the bill was drawn payable “ in current bank notes,” whilst this is in “ currency.”
In these cases, this court said that such certificate and draft could not be satisfied by depreciated paper; they must be discharged by bills passing in the locality of the drawees, as coin. And so in the case of the Marine…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Munn v. BurchIllinois Supreme Court · 1860
- Swift v. WhitneyIllinois Supreme Court · 1858
- Marine Bank v. RushmoreIllinois Supreme Court · 1862
- Marine Bank v. ChandlerIllinois Supreme Court · 1862
3Cited by1 opinion
- Webster & Baxter v. Pierce & BarberIllinois Supreme Court · 1864