Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

77 Ill. 263

Brahm v. Adkins

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1875

Illinois Supreme Court · decided 1875-01-15

Lyman Lacey, Judge, presiding. This was an action of assumpsit, by John P. Adkins against John A. Brahm and William G. Greene, bankers, to recover the amount of a certain deposit. On the trial the plaintiff offered in evidence a paper, or memorandum, which is as follows: “ Brahm & Greene, Bankers. Petersburg, III., May 12th, 1873.

Relies on Marine Bank v. Rushmore · McEwen v. Davis · Boyden v. President of the Bank

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1875-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently March 1974

14 state decisions

6018751880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Justice McAllister

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court:

¶2This was an action of assumpsit, in the Menard circuit court, by appellee against appellants, to recover of the latter, as bankers, a balance of an amount deposited by appellee with them.

¶3Upon the trial, on general issue pleaded, the plaintiff gave in evidence a mere written memorandum, showing the several amounts deposited with defendants, as bankers. There was no evidence of any demand. The plaintiff recovered. The defendants tendered a bill of exceptions, showing that the above was all the evidence, and appealed to this court.

¶4The paper introduced in evidence showed merely the fact that defendants were bankers, a deposit with them by plaintiff, and the amount thereof. It was prima facie a general deposit. A deposit is general unless the depositor makes it special, or deposits it expressly in some particular capacity. Keene v. Collier, 1 Metc. (Ky.) 415; In the matter of Franklin Bank, 1 Paige, 249.

¶5This, then, upon plaintiff’s own showing, was the ordinary case of a deposit of money with bankers, and there was an implied undertaking on their part to restore, not the same funds, but an equivalent sum, whenever it should be demanded. Story on Bailments, sec. 88; Marine Bank v. Rushmore, 28 Ill. 463; Boyden v. Bank of Cape Fear, 65 N. C. 13.

¶6Unless circumstances are shown which amount to a legal excuse, a previous demand by the depositor, or some other person by his order, is indispensable to the maintenance of an action for such deposit. Morse on Banking, 29; Downes v. Phœnix Bank of Charlestown, 6 Hill, 297; Johnson v. Farmers’ Bank, 1 Harr. (Del.) 117; Farmers’ Bank v. Planters’ Bank, 10 Gill & J. 422; Watson v. Phœnix Bank, 8 Metc. (Mass) 217; Girard Bank v. Bank of Penn Township, 39 Penn. St. 92; McEwen v. Davis, 39 Ind. 109.

¶7The plaintiff failed to show a cause of action, and the court therefore erred in denying the motion for a new trial, and giving judgment upon the verdict, wherefore the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.

¶8Judgment reversed.

/77/ill/263 · .json · Public domain