{ "id": 5181988, "name": "Merchants National Bank v. Joseph W. Maple", "name_abbreviation": "Merchants National Bank v. Maple", "decision_date": "1896-06-01", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "484", "last_page": "488", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "65 Ill. App. 484" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "18 S. E. Rep. 513", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "113 N. C. 332", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653105 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/113/0332-01" ] }, { "cite": "119 Ill. 407", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2903296 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/119/0407-01" ] }, { "cite": "36 Ill. 49", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5214314 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/36/0049-01" ] }, { "cite": "11 Ill. 28", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2575805 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/11/0028-01" ] }, { "cite": "11 Ill. 644", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2577041 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/11/0644-01" ] }, { "cite": "105 Ill. 470", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2790173 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/105/0470-01" ] }, { "cite": "40 Iowa, 124", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Iowa", "case_ids": [ 8664052 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/iowa/40/0124-01" ] }, { "cite": "125 Ill. 475", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "29 Ill. App. 458", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 4969956 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/29/0458-01" ] }, { "cite": "27 Ill. App. 254", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 4953462 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/27/0254-01" ] }, { "cite": "8 Ill. App. 563", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 4843246 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/8/0563-01" ] }, { "cite": "6 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 501", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "J.J. Marsh.", "case_ids": [ 8520590 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ky/29/0501-01" ] }, { "cite": "13 Iowa, 138", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Iowa", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "42 Mich. 441", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "case_ids": [ 1411697 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mich/42/0441-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 Ill. 84", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5313161 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/82/0084-01" ] }, { "cite": "40 Ill. 255", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 425858 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/40/0255-01" ] }, { "cite": "149 Ill. 352", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "137 Ill. 634", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5439399 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/137/0634-01" ] }, { "cite": "29 Ill. App. 458", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 4969956 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/29/0458-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 Ill. 84", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5313161 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/82/0084-01" ] }, { "cite": "40 Ill. 255", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 425858 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/40/0255-01" ] }, { "cite": "149 Ill. 352", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "137 Ill. 634", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5439399 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/137/0634-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 457, "char_count": 8264, "ocr_confidence": 0.472, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.350960767681706e-08, "percentile": 0.5139475313039487 }, "sha256": "161ef156ba53cf44b335d8f9fa08fe4d2da09bdcb408ff71c87b7ad3b1824474", "simhash": "1:d6ddb602da440b46", "word_count": 1505 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:04:10.605056+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Merchants National Bank v. Joseph W. Maple." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Opinion pee Curiam.\nThis is a suit by appellee on two checks, of date January 24, 1895, and February 5, 1895, respectively, drawn by John Bowman on appellant, the first for $35.82, and the second for $ 117.73, aggregating the exact amount of the deposit of the drawer in appellant\u2019s bank. The appellant held a promissory note given by said John Bowman and Yal Gr. Heiter for the sum of $400, of date April 3, 1894, due in ninety days, and before either of the above checks was presented for payment, the appellant had applied the entire deposit as payment on said note, and entered it as a credit thereon.\nWhen the checks were presented appellant refused to pay either of them for the reason that the drawer had no money in the bank on deposit out of which to pay them, it having been applied on the said note. The appellee then brought suit on the checks.\nThe case was tried by the court without a jury and the appellant pleaded the set-off of the note as against the deposit of Bowman. The court refused to allow the set-off, and gave judgment for appellee for the amount of the two checks.\nThe only question in the case is whether the appellant had the legal right to apply the bank deposit of Bowman to the payment of his note.\nThe appellee, not having presented his checks for payment till after the appellant had applied the deposit as payment on the note, he is in no better position than Bowman would have been had he sued to recover the deposit himself. Metropolitan National Bank v. Jones, 137 Ill. 634; Bank of Antigo v. Union Trust Co., 149 Ill. 352.\nThe question presented is, could appellant apply the individual deposit of Bowman on a note signed by himself and another? On this subject we have no doubt. While the note was joint, it, under our statute, was also several, and appellant might sue Bowman alone on the note and recover the amount due, or it might treat the mak\u00e9rs as joint debtors and sue them jointly and severally. The Marine National Bank v. Ferry\u2019s Adm\u2019rs, 40 Ill. 255; The People, for use, etc., v. Harrison, Adm\u2019r, 82 Ill. 84.\nThe note could be used as a counter-claim or set-off against Bowman in any suit he might bring to recover his deposit from the bank. Heydon v. Alton National Bank, 29 Ill. App. 458.\nThe appellee attempted to show that the note in question was a partnership note of the makers, and that therefore could not be set off against \u2019 the individual deposit of Bowman. The court below seemed to take that view of it, and refused to allow the set-off or application of Bowman\u2019s deposit account on the note. We think this was error. The giving of the note to the bank as individual, in law divested it of its partnership character, so far as to make the debt or cause of action joint and several and not joint only, as it would have, been had the makers owed the appellant as partners only. Appellant, besides, had no notice of the partnership character of the maker\u2019s indebtedness and accepted the note as a joint and several obligation.\nHad appellant brought suit against Bowman alone, could he be allowed to plead in abatement joint indebtedness of the two makers as partners and thereby defeat the action against him alone ?\nWe think clearly not. The cases cited by appellee showing that under certain circumstances\" a note given by partners as individuals can be shown by parol to have been given for a partnership debt, do not apply in a case like this. Because the court should have found for appellant on the facts, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the cause remanded.", "type": "majority", "author": "Opinion pee Curiam." } ], "attorneys": [ "Page, We ad & Puterbahgh, attorneys for plaintiff in error.", "J. W. Maple, attorney for defendant in error." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Merchants National Bank v. Joseph W. Maple.\n1. Bakes and Banking)\u2014Right to Apply Deposits on Notes.\u2014A person drew checks upon a bank aggregating the amount of his deposit.\" Before the checks were presented for payment, the bank applied the deposit upon a note it held against the drawer and another person and entered it as a credit thereon. Held, that the bank had the legal right to make such application.\n2. Same\u2014Drawer and Drawee of Cheeks\u2014Against Deposits.\u2014The drawee of a check upon the drawer\u2019s deposit in a bank is in no better position than the drawer, and if, at the time of presenting the check for payment, the drawer can not recover his deposit, the drawee can not compel payment of the check.\n3. Promissory Notes\u2014Joint and Joint and Several\u2014Set-off.\u2014A joint promissory note is also joint and several under the statute and one of the makers may be sued alone upon it or it may be sued as a counter claim or set-off against one of the maker\u2019s in an action brought by him against the holder of the note.\nAssumpsit, on checks. Error to the Circuit Court of Peoria County; the Hon. Thomas M. Shaw, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the December term, 1895.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed June 1, 1896.\nPage, We ad & Puterbahgh, attorneys for plaintiff in error.\nPlaintiff not having presented his checks to defendant for payment until after the application was made by defendant of the deposit on the note, there was no appropriation, so far as defendant is concerned, of the deposit to the payment of plaintiff\u2019s checks; so plaintiff is in the same position as Bowman would be if suing for the deposit. Metropolitan National Bank v. Jones, 137 Ill. 634; Bank of Antigo v. Union T. Co., 149 Ill. 352.\nBy statute of Illinois the note in evidence is the joint and several note of the makers. Marine National Bank v. James H. Ferry\u2019s Admr\u2019s, 40 Ill. 255.\nAnd the holder could have proceeded against both or either for payment. People, for use, etc. v. Harrison, Administrator, 82 Ill. 84.\nBeing joint and several, and an instrument on which the bank might have proceeded against Bowman alone, it is a proper set-off or counter-claim to be used against the demand in this case. Parsons on Bills and Notes, 609; Ferguson v. Millikin, 42 Mich. 441; 22 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 288; Hurdle v. Harmer, 5 Jones (N. C.) 360; Pate v. Gray, Heinstead (U. S.) 155; Randolph on Commercial Paper, Vol. 3, 1863; 20 Barbour, 447; Branch, etc. v. Morris, 13 Iowa, 138; 13 Upper Canada Common Pleas, 405; Dunwiddie v. Kerley, 6 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 501.\nA bank may apply on a matured indebtedness so much of its debtor\u2019s deposit, as is sufficient to pay it. Home National Bank v. Newton, 8 Ill. App. 563; Myers v. The Union National Bank, 27 Ill. App. 254; Hayden v. Alton National Bank, 29 Ill. App. 458; Daniel on Neg. Ins., Vol. 2, Sec. 1429.\nOn a joint and several note, parties may be pursued all at once, or separately, until satisfaction is had. People, etc., v. Harrison, 82 Ill. 84.\nUnder partnership liability, recovery against one is a bar to any recovery against others. Jansen v. Grimshaw, 125 Ill. 475; Lindley on Partnership, Vol. 1, star 193.\nA partnership liability is joint and not several. Lindley on Part., Vol. 1, star 193.\nWhere by the statute the debt of a partnership is joint and several, so that a creditor could have sued a single partner, he can set off his claim against the firm against \u25a0 the claim of such partner. Allen v. Maddox, 40 Iowa, 124; Bates on Partnership, Vol. 2, Sec. 1081.\nJ. W. Maple, attorney for defendant in error.\nIt is a familiar rule that debts, to be the subject of set-off, must be mutual between the parties to the action. A debt due from a firm can not be set off against the claim of an individual partner of the firm. Coates v. Preston et al., 105 Ill. 470; Hilliard v. Walker, 11 Ill. 644.\nA separate demand can not be set off against a joint one, nor can a joint debt be set off against a separate one. The demands to be set off must be mutual, and between all the parties to the action. Burgwin et al. v. Babcock et al., 11 Ill. 28; Lemon v. Stevenson, 36 Ill. 49.\nA bank has the right of set-off as against a deposit only when the individual, who is both depositor and debtor, stands in both these characters alike in precisely the same relation and on precisely the same footing toward the bank. Hence, an individual deposit can not be set off against a partnership debt. The International Bank v. Jones et al., 119 Ill. 407.\nA bank can not charge an over-draft of a firm against the individual account of a member of the firm, although the member, as such, may be liable for the over-draft. Adams v. First National Bank, 113 N. C. 332; 18 S. E. Rep. 513." }, "file_name": "0484-01", "first_page_order": 480, "last_page_order": 484 }