{ "id": 5205126, "name": "Herman Kupfer, Plaintiff in Error, v. Nicholas Marc, Defendant in Error", "name_abbreviation": "Kupfer v. Marc", "decision_date": "1862-04", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "388", "last_page": "391", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "28 Ill. 388" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "16 Ill. 269", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2588121 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/16/0269-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 Hill, 425", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Hill,", "case_ids": [ 11254548 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/scl/20/0425-01" ] }, { "cite": "3 Rich. 42", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Rich.", "case_ids": [ 8486144 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/scl/37/0042-01" ] }, { "cite": "7 Hill, 359", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Hill,", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "3 Scam. 183", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Scam.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "13 Wend. 101", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wend.", "case_ids": [ 2015656 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/wend/13/0101-01" ] }, { "cite": "6 Conn. 108", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Conn.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "4 Watts, 400", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Watts", "case_ids": [ 1842804 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/watts/4/0400-01" ] }, { "cite": "23 Win. 71", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Win.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "7 Mo. 595", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo.", "case_ids": [ 8857082 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mo/7/0595-01" ] }, { "cite": "5 Conn. 186", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Conn.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "2 McLean, 106", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "McLean", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "2 McLean, 10", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "McLean", "case_ids": [ 6129598 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/f-cas/11/0766-01" ] }, { "cite": "4 Ala. 140", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ala.", "case_ids": [ 8493043 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ala/4/0140-01" ] }, { "cite": "4 Ala. 88", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ala.", "case_ids": [ 8492798 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "140" } ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ala/4/0088-01" ] }, { "cite": "20 Ill. 144", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2595479 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/20/0144-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 431, "char_count": 7084, "ocr_confidence": 0.471, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.518461695170957e-08, "percentile": 0.28328350417340936 }, "sha256": "244afc31d30d60498ede79d95befe668e5797f3817a828f66c61c0c82fc86640", "simhash": "1:27b9dc71cca4a492", "word_count": 1266 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:21:34.240099+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Herman Kupfer, Plaintiff in Error, v. Nicholas Marc, Defendant in Error." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Catom, C. J.\nThe question in this case is, whether the following is a bill of exchange :\nExchange for $305.21.\nPeru, Ill., May 16th, 1861.\nMo. 14476. At sight of this my first of Exchange, (second unpaid) pay to the order of R. G. Parks, Esq.., three hundred and five 21-100 dollars in funds current to-day, value received, and charge to the account of\nTo Hoffman & Gelpcke, ) Ohieago, Ill. J\nNICHL\u2019S MARO.\nIt is the duty of the courts, as it is the policy of the law, to uphold the character of commercial paper which is made and designed for commercial purposes. Such was the undoubted design of this paper. It was made and designed for a medium of exchange, which is one of the most favorite purposes of commercial paper. We are not to go outside of the paper, and by tbe aid of tbe imagination, quickened by tbe remembrance of a particular commercial crisis, imagine a state of things, in view of which we may suspect the paper was drawn, and which, if expressed on its face, would destroy its character as a bill of exchange, in the legal and commercial sense of that term. The bill is payable at sight, and dated within five hours\u2019 ride of the place of payment. It orders the payment of so many dollars \u201c in funds current to-day.\u201d Prima facie, at least, this is payable in money. It is not necessary now to say, whether it would be competent on a special defense, to prove that those peculiar words had any particular meaning, either in Peru or Chicago, or anywhere else. The presumption, at least, is, that the funds here specified wrere the legal coin of the country, or its equivalent paper money which passed in transactions as cash. This does not say the payment shall be made in funds current in Chicago, or Peru, or any other particular place. Eor the purpose of upholding the character of this bill, which was designed and used as a bill of exchange, we may well understand it as funds current everywhere. We think the court below misunderstood the true character of this bill of exchange.\nThe judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.\nJudgment reversed/.", "type": "majority", "author": "Catom, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Leland & Blanchard, for Plaintiff in Error.", "G. S. Eldredge, for Defendant in Error." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Herman Kupfer, Plaintiff in Error, v. Nicholas Marc, Defendant in Error.\nERROR TO LASALLE.\nA bill of exchange to be paid in \u201cfunds current to-day,\" will be understood to be payable in funds current everywhere; either in coin, or paper money equivalent thereto.\nThis was an action of assumpsit, begun in the 'LaSalle County Court.\nThe declaration contained a special count upon the following instrument, a copy of which is set out in the body of the count:\n\u201cExchange for $305.21. . Peru, III., May 16, 1861.\nNo. 14416. At sight of this my first of exchange, (second un-\npaid,) pay to the order of R. G. Parks, Esq., three hundred and five and 21-100 dollars, in funds current to-day, value received, and charge to account of\nTo Boffman & Gelpcke, ) Chicago, Ill.\u201d )\nNICHO\u2019S MARC.\nIndorsed, \u201c Pay H. Eupfer, Esq., or order. B. Gr. Parks.\u201d Also the common counts.\nThe defendant filed a demurrer to the special count.\nThis demurrer was sustained.\nThe common counts were nol. pros\u2019d, and the plaintiff abided by the demurrer.\nJudgment rendered for defendant.\nThe following errors are assigned: In sustaining demurrer to special count; in rendering judgment for defendant; and in not giving judgment for plaintiff.\nLeland & Blanchard, for Plaintiff in Error.\nA note payable \u201c in the lawful funds of the United States,\u201d is payable in gold and silver. Ogden v. Slade, 1 Texas, 13.\nIf it be held that the writing is payable in currency, we answer that this court has decided that \u201c by the term currency is understood bank bills or other paper money issued by authority, which passes as and for coin. Swift et al. v. Whitney, 20 Ill. 144.\nThe holder of this bill had a legal right to demand coin in payment of the same, unless it be proven that the words current funds \u201c have a local signification.\u201d\nA bill of exchange not specifically made payable in currency, is always payable in coin if the holder demands it.\nA bill payable in \u201c funds current \u201d in blew York, was held to be payable in gold and silver, or their equivalent, and therefore good as a bill of exchange. Lay v. Holbrook, 4 Ala. 88; Carter v. Penn, 4 Ala. 140.\nIs this writing specifically made payable in currency ? if so, such specification is found in the phrase \u201c in funds current today.\u201d We have already argued that the word fund, as used in the writing, signifies money. Does it signify one kind of money to the exclusion of another ? If it does, it must be gold and silver, as decided in the case before referred to, of Ogden v. Slade, 1 Texas, 13. 4 Ala. 88, 140; 20 Ill. 144.\nA note payable in Arkansas money, is- held in Arkansas to be payable in the current coin of the United States. Wilbern v. Green, 1 Eng. 255.\nG. S. Eldredge, for Defendant in Error.\nDo the words, afunds current to-day,\u201d ex vi termini, mean money\u2014legal coin ? Unless they do, the instrument is not a bill of exchange. Lexicographers attach no such meaning to the word \u201c funds,\u201d nor does the law ; nor is there any such common definition of the word \u201c funds,\u201d local or otherwise, as would warrant this court in giving the instrument the same legal effect as if expressly payable in coin. It is true, \u201c funds \u201d may mean legal coin, but it cannot be denied, we think, that it may also mean bank notes; and \u201c funds current to-day \u201d may mean bank notes which may depreciate. If it may mean bank notes, it is not a negotiable instrument. The text books and the whole current of decisions are very decidedly against the position sought to be maintained on the part of the plaintiff, that an instrument drawn in the form of a bill of exchange, but payable in bank notes, is in law a bill of exchange, or even a promissory note. See Pyles on Bills; Story on Bills; Story on Promissory bTotes, sec. 18 ; Kent\u2019s Com. (marginal paging) 76 ; Hasbrouck v. Seaman, 2 McLean, 10 ; Fry v. Rousseau, 2 McLean, 106; Lieber v. Goodrich, 5 Conn. 186; Farwell v. Kennett, 7 Mo. 595; Thompson v. Sloan, 23 Win. 71; Gray v. Donnahoe, 4 Watts, 400 ; Cook v. Saiterlee, 6 Conn. 108; Ontario Bank v. Lightbody, 13 Wend. 101; Scott v. Conover, 1 Halst. 225; McCormick v. Trotter, 10 S. & R. 96; Bradley v. Morris, 3 Scam. 183.\nThe Supreme Court of Missouri, in Farwell v. Kennett, expressly hold that a bill payable in \u201c currency \u201d is not a bill of exchange.\nA bill payable in Arkansas money held not a bill of exchange. Hawkins v. Walker, 5 Pike, 481.\nA check drawn in New York upon a bank in Mississippi, payable in \u201c current bank bills,\u201d held not negotiable. Little v. The Ph\u0153nix Bank, 7 Hill, 359 ; 3 Rich. 42; 2 Hill, 425 ; 8 Eng. 13.\nOur statute, in reference to negotiable instruments, has no application to a bill of exchange. The legal effect and- the liabilities of parties to a bill of exchange in this State, is governed wholly by the law merchant\u2014which became and is a part of the common law\u2014and under it, we have, as we think, clearly shown by the authorities, a bill of exchange cannot be drawn and made negotiable payable in \u201c currency,\u201d \u201c current funds,\u201d or bank notes. 16 Ill. 269." }, "file_name": "0388-01", "first_page_order": 388, "last_page_order": 391 }