Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

thereof as may be required; and on failure to make such payment for the space of thirty days after the same shall be due, the treasurer of the state shall issue an execution for the amount due, or required to be paid as aforesaid from such town, against the goods or estate of the inhabitants of such town, directed to the sheriff of the county to which such town may belong, and returnable within sixty days; and the sheriff shall serve and return such execution to the treasurer, according to the directions therein given.

safe keeping, &c.

SECT. 17. Each town shall be held responsible for the safe keep- Each town reing and correct management of said fund belonging thereto, and sponsible for its shall make good all deficiency or loss that it may sustain; and on failure to make good such loss or deficiency, within one year after the same shall occur, such town shall forfeit to the state a sum equal to the whole amount received from the treasury, in pursuance of the provisions of this act, to be recovered in the name of the treasurer, for the use of the state.

Proceedings

its proportion.

SECT. 18. If any town shall not agree to receive its proportion 1846. of said money, on the terms specified in this act, the treasurer of the when any town state shall, at the expense of said town, loan the same on note, refuses to receive payable to the state, secured by mortgage of real estate, at least double the amount in value of the loan, the interest of which shall be payable annually at the state treasury; and when collected, shall be paid by said treasurer to the treasurer of such town, to be by such town appropriated in the same manner, and such town shall be liable in the same manner, as if such town had agreed to receive its proportion of the principal; always provided, that the funds aforesaid, which shall be accepted and received by the several towns in this state, shall not be liable to taxation.

ceiving said

SECT. 19. The form of the vote, to be passed by any town agree- Form of vote, reing to receive its proportion of said money from the state, upon the money. terms specified in this act, an attested copy of which vote is to be lodged with the treasurer, shall be substantially as follows: At a legal town meeting of the legal voters of the town of

[blocks in formation]

Resolved, that this town will receive its proportion of the money, which is or may be deposited with this state by the United States, in pursuance of the act of congress, entitled "an act to regulate the deposits of the public money," and on the terms and conditions specified in the second chapter of the act of this state, entitled "an act relating to moneys received from the government of the United States;" and that the said town will, in all respects, comply with the stipulations contained in said chapter of said act.

Resolved, that be, and he hereby is, appointed agent Form of resoluof this town, to receive from the treasurer of this state the propor- agent to receive tion appointing tion of the said money belonging to this town; and the said agent said money. is authorized to sign a receipt therefor, conformably to the requirements of the said act of this state, which said receipt shall be obligatory on this town; and that the form of the receipt to be given by such agent to the treasurer, shall be as follows:

Received, on the

treasurer, the sum of

day of dollars and

from

Form of receipt

cents, being the to treasurer. proportion of the public money received by this state from the United States, to which the town of is entitled; which said sum of money is received by said town in deposit, for safe keeping, and in trust for the state, and is to be held, used, and, if required, to be repaid into the treasury, in all respects conformably to the provisions

1889. When towns

have been divi

ceed.

of the second chapter of the act entitled "an act relating to moneys received from the government of the United States."

A. B., agent of the town of

SECT. 20. In case of the division of any town which has received, or shall hereafter receive, or hold, a proportion of the money which ded, how to pro- has been, or shall be, received from the United States, by virtue of the act of congress, entitled "an act to regulate the deposits of the public money," and in case of the division of said money, or of the securities therefor, between the towns constituted by such division, the treasurer of this state may deliver up the receipt of such town, in his hands, and instead thereof receive new receipts for the same, of the agents of such towns so constituted; and said towns, on receiving the said money, or said securities therefor, shall enjoy the same right, and be subject to the same liabilities, in respect to the same, as other towns enjoy, or are subject to, by virtue of this act. Towns which SECT. 21. Every town which has not received its proportion of have not received the surplus funds belonging to the United States, deposited with this may receive it.' state, may receive the same on the terms specified in this act; and whenever any town, which has not received its proportion of said funds, shall signify to the treasurer of this state, its desire to receive the same, on the terms aforesaid, the said treasurer, within a reasonable time thereafter, shall collect the proportion of said fund, to which said town is entitled, of the person, persons, or corporation, to whom it may have been loaned under the eighteenth section of this act, and shall pay the same to the agent of said town, on the terms and according to the provisions of this act.

their proportion,

Treasurer may give release deeds, &c.

1843.

convey the legal title.

SECT. 22. When any moneys, loaned by the treasurer of this state, under this act, shall have been received by him, he may execute release deeds of any real estate which may have been mortgaged to the state, as security for the payment of such moneys.

SECT. 23. The treasurers of the several towns may, upon the Treasurer may receipt in full of the principal and interest of any loan of any part of the town deposit fund, with the assent of the managers of said fund for such town, execute an assignment of any security held for such loan, and convey to the assignee the legal title to the premises mortgaged to secure the payment of such loan.

TITLE XL V.

AN ACT CONCERNING PROMISSORY NOTES AND
BILLS OF EXCHANGE.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives, in General Assembly convened:

be negotiable, &c.

SECTION 1. That all promissory notes for the amount of thirty- What notes shall five dollars or more, for the payment of money only, and made payable to any person, or his order, or to the bearer, shall be assignable, according to the custom of merchants and the law relating to inland bills of exchange; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize any person to issue bills of credit, to be used as a general currency, or medium of exchange, instead of money.*

*No person can sue on a negotiable note, without the legal title. Shepard v. Hall, 1 C. R. 494; Lee v. Jilson, 9 C. R. 94. If the plaintiff after suit, parts with the title, the suit cannot be sustained. Same. Curtis v. Bemis, 26 C. R. 1. Where a note, negotiated before due is further negotiated after it has been dishonored, the holder takes the legal title and can maintain a suit on it in his own name. French v. Jarvis, 29 C. R. 347. The indorsee of a negotiable note, who takes it in the ordinary course of business in payment of a pre-existing debt to himself, is a bona fide holder thereof for value. McCasky v. Sherman, 24 C. R. 605; Bridgeport City Bank v. Welch, 29 C. R. 475. The rule that a note to be negotiable must be payable absolutely means only that it must appear on its face that the maker's promise will be at some time absolutely enforcible. Protection Ins. Co. v. Bills, 31 C. R. 534. Indorsement of a note by the payee, in the name of a copartnership of which the payee is a member, transfers the title. Finch v. DeForest, 16 C. R. 445. Possession by payee, after indorsement, prima facie evidence of title. Bond v. Storrs, 18 C. R. 412. Also, payment by the indorsee. Merrills v. Swift, 18 C. R. 257; French v. Jarvis, 29 C. R. 347. Title by assignment, instead of indorsement, not sufficient. Brush v. Curtis, 4 C. R. 312; Freeman v. Perry, 22 C. R. 617. To constitute title by indorsement a delivery of note by indorser to indorsee or that which is equivalent to such delivery, is necessary. Dann v. Norris, 24 C. R. 333. United States courts have jurisdiction, if indorser and indorsee belong to different states. Codwise v. Gleason, 3 Day, 3. An indorsement has no effect without delivery and acceptance; therefore when payee indorses note in blank and retains it until his death, the legal title therein, at his death, vests in executor, and cannot be transferred by mere delivery without new indorsement by executor. Clark v. Sigourney, 17 C. R. 511. Indorsement of certificate of deposit, payable to order, by payee, constitutes it a bill of exchange, and imposes upon the parties to it the liabilities ordinarily attached to that kind of paper. Kilgore v. Bulkley, 14 C. R. 362. Indorser warrants, by his indorsement, the genuineness and validity of the instrument indorsed, and cannot, as against bona fide holder, for value, set up a legal incapacity, in the maker, to make the contract expressed in such instrument. Kilgore v. Bulkley, 14 C. R.

862.

The only effect of indorsement "without recourse" is to transfer the bill without warranty. Cowles v. Harts, 3 C. R. 516. Effect of a forged indorsement. Terry v. Bissell, 26 C. R. 23. Indorsement of bill or note after due, is equivalent to drawing new bill payable at sight. Bishop v. Dexter, 2 C. R. 419. To enable a party to recover on production of one part of a divided bank bill, he must show that he is owner of the whole, and must account for the absence of the other part; but his act of cutting such bill in two, for the purpose of transmission by mail, does not impair his rights upon the bill. Bank of United States v. Sill, 5 C. R. 106. The drawing of bill by one partner, in his own name, upon the firm of which he is a member, on account of the firm, makes it an accepted bill." Dougal v. Cowles, 5 Day, 511.

1865.

SECT. 2. Any negotiable promissory note, executed subsequent Negotiable note to the first day of October, 1865, and payable on demand, which

payable on de

mand, when due.

A note made in the state of New York, and indorsed to a citizen of Connecticut, is not barred by the maker's discharge under the insolvent laws of New York. Anderson v. Wheeler, 25 C. R. 603.

Negotiable note given for spirituous liquors and transferred after due, not protected by the 27th section of the act of 1854, for the suppression of intemperance. Bissell v. Gowdy, 31 C. R. 47.

Want or partial failure of consideration, or other equity, may be given in evidence between the original parties. Cook v. Mix, 11 C. R. 432. Also against bona fide holder who received the bill without consideration. Lawrence v. Stonington Bank, 6 C. R. 521. And between any parties, if the note be overdue. Nevins v. Townsend, 6 C. R. 5; Robinson v. Lyman, 10 C. R. 30. But not matters of set off, having no connection with the subject matter of note. Stedman v. Jillson, 10 C. R. 55. Want of consideration, no defense in a suit by bona fide indorsee. Middletown Bank v. Jerome, 18 C. E. 443. Fraudulent representations to induce a party to indorse a note are not admissible in evidence against bona fide holder, before maturity, who took it without knowledge of the fraudulent representations. Humphrey v. Clark, 27 C. R. 381. Where note indorsed in blank for accommodation of maker, is fraudulently delivered, by maker's agent, to another party, who innocently and without notice of the fraud accepts the same in satisfaction and extinction of a pre-existing debt due to him from such agent, such bona fide receiver may, upon non-payment by maker, recover from indorser the full amount of the note. Brush v. Scribner, 11 C. R. 388. As to rights of bona fide holder of paper fraudulently transferred, see further, Hall v. Hale, 8 C. R. 336; Fairchild v. Brown, 11 C. R. 26. Parol evidence admissible to show that defendant's indorsement was intended as a security and not as a guaranty. Case v. Spalding, 24 C. R. 578.

Negotiable note, entitled to grace. Shepard v. Hall, 1 C. R. 329; Norton v. Lewis, C. R. 478. Imports consideration. Camp v. Tompkins, 9 C. R. 545; Bristol v. Warner, 19 C. R. 7. Days of grace, a part of the contract. Savings Bank . Bates, 8 C. B. 505. For events affecting days of grace, see Barlow . Gregory, 31 C. R. 261.

Demand, not necessary

If no time be named in the note, it is payable on demand. Bacon v. Page, 1 C. R. 404. In order to charge indorser of negotiable note payable on demand, payment must be demanded and notice of dishonor given within a reasonable time. Lockwood . Crawford, 18 C. R. 361; Culver v. Parish, 21 C. R. 408. But see Tomlinson Carriage Co. v. Kinsella, 31 C. R. 268. If payable after date, day of date to be excluded. Avery. Stewart, 2 C. R. 69. Party has no right to pay note until due. Savings Bank v. Bates, 8 C. R. 505. Notarial protest, unnecessary. Bay v. Church, 15 C. R. 15. to sustain suit against maker. Eldred v. Hawes, 4 C. R. 465; Bond v. Storrs, 13 C. R. 412; Jackson v. Packer, 13 C. R. 342. Notice of non-payment must be given to all the indorsers by whom it is indorsed, in their individual names, although the indorsement be joint. Shepard v. Hawley, 1 C. R. 367. Demand and notice, when necessary. Buck v. Cotton, 2 C. R. 126; Bishop v. Dexter, 2 C. R. 419; Dwight v. Scovill, 2 C. B. 654; Holland v. Turner, 10 C. R. 308. Collecting agents are "holders for collection," and for all purpose of demand and notice, and in the exercise of due diligence after dishonor, they are the holders of the note. Bartlett v. Isbell, 81 C. R. 296. What de mand and notice, sufficient. Shepard v. Hall, 1 C. R. 329; Hartford Bank . Stedman, 3 C. R. 489; Belden v. Lamb, 17 C. R. 441; Lockwood v. Crawford, 18 C. B. 851. Bartlett v. Isbell, 31 C. R. 296.

Any form of notice to indorser sufficient, where it intends to describe the instrument in question, and does not mislead or deceive indorser in regard to the instrument so intended to be described in it. Kilgore v. Bulkley, 14 C. R. 362.

Notice of non-payment need not state that holder looks to party notified for payment. Cowles v. Harts, 3 C. R. 516. Notice insufficient, when. Barnwell v. Mitchell, 3 C. R. 101. When sufficient. Bartlett v. Isbell, 31 C. R. 296. Where bill of exchange was payable "at either bank in Providence," held that notice by holder, to acceptor, of the particular bank at which demand of payment would be made, was not necessary; Jackson v. Packer, 13 C. R. 342. Not necessary that the holder of a note, negotiated after maturity, should make a new demand upon the maker for payment, and give notice of non-payment to the indorsers; the original demand and notice enures to the benefit of all subsequent holders. French v. Jarvis, 29 C. R. 347.

New promise, presumptive evidence of demand and notice. Breed v. Hillhouse, 7 C. R. 523. Usage of banks as to notice, may be proved. Hartford Bank v. Stedman, C. R. 489. Demand of payment of lost note on presentment of copy, is sufficient, and proof of such acts will satisfy the usual averment of presentment and demand. Robbins v. Harvey, 5 C. R. 335. Indorser may, before note becomes payable, waive his right to require demand and notice, and proof of such waiver satisfies the usual averment of demand and notice. Norton v. Lewis, 2 C. R. 478. As a general rule it is the duty of holder of bank check, payable on demand, to present it for payment within reasonable time, and, on non-payment, to give notice thereof to drawer; but omission of holder to comply with this rule does not exonerate drawer from liability where drawer sustains no injury by such omission. Hoyt v. Seeley, 18 C. R. 353. The whole rule applicable to presentment of bill of exchange, by holder, for payment, is, that presentment must be made, on the day on which bill becomes due, unless it is out of the power of holder, by the use of reasonable diligence, so to present it; and failure of present

remains unpaid four months from its date, shall be considered as overdue and dishonored after that time.t

ment on such day is made excusable by any inevitable accident not attributable to fault of holder, provided he make presentment as soon after such day as he can. Windham Bank v. Norton, 22 C. R. 213. Where failure of presentment resulted from mistake of postmaster, in misdirecting package containing bill of exchange transmitted by mail for presentment, this occurrence held to be an inevitable accident within the rule. Same. Averment of due presentment is sustained by proof of matter of excuse. Same. The general rule in relation to time of presentment of check for payment may be varied in a particular case by agreement of parties, evidenced by proof of an established usage of one party with which the other party was, at the time when he indorsed the check, aoquainted. Bridgeport Bank v. Dyer, 19 C. R. 136. Where acceptance of bill was refused, held that action would lie against drawer before bill became payable. Sterry v. Robinson, 1 Day, 11. Where payee, having negotiated note, finding drawer unable to pay it at maturity, furnishes to drawer, as his agent, money to take it up, the payment of the note by drawer with funds so furnished makes payee owner of the note in the same manner as if he had never parted with it. Merrills v. Swift, 18 C. R. 257.

A forged note, not payment of an antecedent demand. Eagle Bank v. Smith, 5 C. R. 71. Note, not payment, unless so expressly agreed. Dougal v. Cowles, 5 Day, 511; Davidson v. Bridgeport, 8 C. R. 472; Bill v. Porter, 9 C. R. 23.

Indorsement of a note, not a specialty. Hinsdale v. Miles, 5 C. R. 831. Blank indorsement need not be filled. Castle v. Candee, 16 C. R. 223. Indorsers, liable in order of indorsements. Talcott v. Cogswell, 3 Day, 512. When indorsee may recover on common counts. Eagle Bank v. Smith, 5 C. R. 71; Rodman v. Denison, 21 C. R. 406; Davis v. Benton, 24 Č. R. 555.

Joint makers, equally liable in presumption of law. Orvis v. Newell, 17 C. R. 97; Bull v. Allen, 19 C. R. 101. Joint promissor cannot sue copromissors, on the note. Moore v. Denslow, 14 C. R. 235. What proof of loss of a note, sufficient. Swift v. Stevens, 8 C. R. 431. Memorandum on margin, no part of note. Norwich Bank v. Hyde, 18 C. R. 279. Maker of note not negotiated, or negotiated fraudulently, may be garnisheed. Enos . Tuttle, 3 C. R. 27. Where note upon its face purported to be drawn by two, as principals, and two others, as sureties, and was signed by said principals at the usual place of signature, and was signed on the back, but not at the usual place of signature, by said sureties, such sureties were held liable, not as guarantors merely, but as joint promissors with said principals. Palmer v. Grant, 4 C. R. 389. Where the number of dollars is left blank in the body of the note, and is expressed in figures in memorandum on the margin, bona fide holder may fill the blank with any sum, not exceeding the limitation in the margin, which the transaction through which he received the note will warrant. Norwich Bank v. Hyde, 13 C. R. 279. Rule of damages against party, indorsing as surety of maker, is the same as against maker. Belden v. Lamb, 17 C. R. 441.

The prima facie import of blank indorsement of note not negotiable, whether payable on demand or on time, is an engagement by indorser that the note is payable according to its tenor, that the maker shall be of ability to pay it when due, and that it is collectible by the use of due diligence. Huntington v. Harvey, 4 C. R. 124; Welton v. Scott, 4 C. R. 527; Prentiss v. Danielson, 5 C. R. 175; Perkins v. Catlin, 11 C. R. 213; Castle v. Candee, 16 C. R. 223; Ransom v. Sherwood, 26 C. R. 437. Such is also the prima facie import of blank indorsement of negotiable note by a third party for the better security of holder, such third party not being payee or indorsee. Laffin v. Pomeroy, 11 C. R. 440; Ransom v. Sherwood, 26 C. R. 437. See also Wylie v. Lewis, 7 C. R. 301. Indorsee of note not negotiable, in attempting to enforce collection against maker, is not bound to levy upon maker's property where it is clearly insufficient to satisfy the claim, and will not, by omitting to levy in such case, lose his hold, to any extent, upon indorser. Sheldon v. Ackley, 4 Day, 455. Note not negotiable is not entitled to grace. Backus v. Danforth, 10 C. R. 297. Such note is not a specialty, and want of consideration may be shown to avoid it. Edgerton v. Edgerton, 8 C. R. 6; Barnum v. Barnum, 9 C. R. 242; Raymond v. Sellick, 10 C. R. 480. But in some respects, in regard to mode of declaring upon such notes, they are, in this state, treated as specialties; and such note, payable to trustee for benefit of another, must be sued in name of such trustee. Chaplin v. Canada, 8 C. R. 286. Under declaration containing count on note with the common counts, plaintiff may, if note is not negotiable, prove its consideration and recover therefor on one of the common counts without producing or canceling note. Fitch v. Bogue, 19 C. R. 285. And in a suit against indorser of a negotiable note plaintiff may recover under the common counts. Davis v. Benton, 24 C. R. 555. In suit between original parties to note not negotiable, such note is admissible evidence under the money counts, there being in such case no distinction between note negotiable and note not negotiable. White v. Brown, 19 C. R. 577. Declaration that defendant by note under his hand, &c., promised, &c., is sustained by proof that defendant affixed to the note his mark between his name and the word "mark," although another person wrote the words. Walbridge v. Arnold, 21 C. R. 424. Promissory note in name of donor, payable to donee, cannot constitute donatio causa mortis. Raymond v. Sellick, 10 C. R 480. But the promissory note of a third person, though not payable to bearer, and not indorsed so as to transfer the legal title by delivery, can. Brown v. Brown, 18 C. R. 410. Promissory note negotiable, payable after decease of drawer, on demand, is not an instrument of testamentary character, but has the nature and incidents of an ordinary note negotiable. Bristol v. Warner, 19 C. R. 7. + Otherwise before this section. See notes to Sect. 1, of this Title.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »