hand payable on demand, but having no place of payment appointed therein, may be sued, and the action may be sustained without proof of any special demand. Me. Supreme Ct. 1841, Bryant o. Damariscotta Bank, 18 Me. 240. 263. If a bank note is payable on demand, at a particular time and place, a demand at the specified place is necessary, and at the specified time or afterwards, and must be averred and proved. If the place is not specified in the bill with distinctness and precision, no demand is necessary. Ga. Supreme Ct. 1853, Dougherty v. Western Bank, 13 Ga. 287. 264. When, for any purpose, demand of payment of bank notes is necessary, the demand must be made at the place where the notes are, upon their face, made payable. Tenn. Supreme Ct. 1859, Ware v. Street, 2 Head. 609. 265. In order to sustain an action upon a bank bill promising payment upon demand, there must be a demand of payment, or circumstances must exist excusing a demand, although a bill is not made payable at any particular place. A material difference exists, in this respect, between a promissory note and a bank bill issued for the purpose of being circulated as money. N. H. Superior Ct. 1846, Thurston v. Wolfborough Bank, 18 N. H. 391. 266. If a bank closes its doors, and has no place of business, a demand is not necessary in order to sustain an action upon its bills. гъ. 267. The Massachusetts statute of 1816, ch. 91, section 2, so far as it enacted that every bank which had issued any bill &c. payable at any other place than where the bank was established by law and kept, should be liable to pay the same on demand at said bank, without a previous demand at the place where it might on its face be payable,-Held inoperative, and not binding on the parties to such bills, nor on the courts. Mass. Supreme Ct. 1819, King v. Dedham Bank, 15 Mass. 447. 268. How demand may be made. One demand of payment in the aggregate is sufficient on presenting to a bank a number of its own bills. U. S. Circ. Ct. Me. 1821, Suffolk Bank v. Lincoln Bank, 3 Mas. 1. And see Reapers' Bank v. Willard, 24 Ill. 433; Boatman's &c. Institute Bank of Missouri, 33 Mo. 497, 522. 269. The amount payable. That the fact that bank notes are below par does not render their circulation illegal; but the bank must pay the face of them to the holder, although he took them below par,-see Robison v. Beall, 26 Ga. 17. 270. How payment should be made. Under a statute (Mass. Act of 1809, ch. 38), imposing a penalty of two per cent. per month, on default in paying any of the bills issued by a bank, from the time of its neglect or refusal the penalty accrues where the bank, upon the seasonable presentation of its bills for payment, causes delay by the process of counting out the money, so as to be unable to pay the same day. The holder of bank bills is entitled to be paid in specie the amount of the bills, upon a demand within the usual banking hours of the bank; and the bank is bound to keep its money counted or weighed, or to employ servants sufficient to count it or weigh it, so as to pay all demands made within the usual bank hours. U. 8. Circ. Ct. Me. 1821, Suffolk Bank v. Lincoln Bank, 3 Mas. 1. 271. Whether there was unreasonable delay in payment must depend on the circumstances of the case. Banks should have sums counted, or sufficient servants to count them, so that a demand of ordinary magnitude may be paid within the banking hours of the day; and the fact that demands for specie are made as the result of a combination to create a run upon the bank does not excuse the bank from diligence in paying out specie. N. Y. Supreme Ct. 1827, Hubbard v. Chenango Bank, 8 Cow. 88. 272. The plaintiff demanded $1,000; the teller, with more than $10,000 specie in boxes, commenced by selecting the small pieces to make payment with. The plaintiff offered to take a box at the bank mark, but such offer was refused, and the teller was unable to count $1,000 in the four business hours of the day; so that the demand could not be paid on the day made. Held, a refusal to pay on demand. Ib. 273. That no bank has a right to unnecessarily delay a bill-holder by paying him in ten-cent pieces, and stopping to count them— see Reapers' Bank v. Willard, 24 IU. 439. 274. As to paying in quarter-dollars—see People r. Dubois, 18 Ill. 333. 275. Under the laws of the United States, the holder of bank bills is not obliged to take foreign gold or coin at the bank count, but the payment must be by weight. U. S. Circ. | drafts, and the debtor bank also deposited a Ct. Me. 1821, Suffolk Bank v. Lincoln Bank, further sum to secure payment of the damages 3 Mas. 1. in case the drafts should be protested. Held, that this agreement was no bar to an action against the debtor bank as drawer of the drafts, after the same had been protested. U. S. Circ. Ct. 1843, Stickney v. Bank of Illinois, 3 McLean, 181. 276. Consequences of refusal to redeem. The mere act of suspending payment, without any general derangement of the business of the bank, is not, intrinsically, and apart from any statute provision, a forfeiture of its charter, especially where the legislature have provided a remedy by imposing a penalty or damages for refusal to redeem notes. Ohio Supreme Ct. 1841, State v. Commercial Bank of Cincinnati, 10 Ohio, 535. See also Livingston r. Bank of N. Y. 26 Barb. 304; 5 Abb. Pr. 338; Rockwell v. The State, 11 Ohio, 130. 277. But the suspension of specie payments may be carried so far as to afford evidence of an entire misuser of its powers, and thus extinguish its chartered privileges. Ohio Supreme Ct. 1841, State v. Commercial Bank of Cincinnati, 10 Ohio, 535. 278. Banks are not exempt from the rules of the common law in regard to corporations, and the application of the law of quo warranto to them for forfeiture of charter; but are subject to them, at least so far as to have a judgment of forfeiture entered against them for a failure to pay specie on their notes. Miss. Ct. of Errors, 1846, Planters' Bank v. State, 7 Smed. & M. 163. 279. That a bank's continued refusal to pay specie is not sufficient evidence of insolvency to prevent a bona fide purchaser of its bills, after that time, from setting them offsee Jefferson County Bank v. Chapman, 19 Johns. 322. 282. The charter of a bank prohibiting the institution from at any time suspending or refusing payment in gold or silver of its obligations, provided that, in case of a refusal of the bank to redeem its bills, &c. in gold or silver, the holder should be entitled to recover the amount with twelve per cent. interest. On April 1, 1862, the plaintiff demanded of the bank payment of its notes in coin, which was refused, but the amount was tendered in United States legal tender notes. Held, that the provision in the charter in question did not amount to a restriction of the right of the bank to avail itself of the privilege of using anything else as money, as a tender, which the United States, by their laws, might legally declare to be such. Ind. Supreme Ct. 1862, Reynolds v. Bank of Indiana, 1 Am. Law Reg. N. S. 669. 283. No action will lie by one bank against another for collecting its bills, and presenting them for payment in a harassing manner with a malicious intent to injure its credit. Vt. Supreme Ct. 1854, South Royalton Bank v. Suffolk Bank, 27 Vt. 505. 284. Redemption at agency. Under section 5 of the New York act of 1840-relative to the redemption of bank notes by the agents of banks and of banking associations 280. Where a State, by becoming a stock--it is necessary to leave the circulating holder in a banking corporation, is made liable by charter for the ultimate redemption of the bills of the bank, in proportion to the value of the shares held by the State, which amount to one half of the whole number, this is a liability to redeem a portion of the whole circulation, and not a portion of each bill; and the State having already redeemed more than one half of the outstanding circulation of the bank, is discharged from further liability to the bill-holders. Ga. Supreme Ct. 1855, Robinson v. Bank of Darien, 18 Ga. 65. 281. One bank held a large sum in the notes of another, and the latter agreed to give in payment of them drafts on a distant place, the creditor bank to deposit the notes in the hands of third persons as security for the notes at the agency until the termination of twenty days from their first presentment for payment, or to present them a second time, at or after the expiration of that period, in order to render a neglect to redeem such bills at the agency, and to pay the extra interest thereon, an absolute forfeiture of the charter of the bank, or of the franchises of the association. The second and third clauses of this section are highly penal, and must be construed in such a manner as to enable the bank to save the forfeiture by redeeming the particular bills at its agency, and paying the interest thereon, before it shall be subjected to such serious consequences. N. Y. Chancery, 1842, Bank Commissioners v. James Bank, 9 Paige, 457. 285. An application for an injunction &c. | the constitutional currency of the country. should be denied, if it is not satisfactorily The law is so far a part of the contract as to shown that the bills were at the agency for define what both parties meant by the word redemption at the end of the twenty days, or 'dollars," as used in the note. Miss. Ct. of were presented there for payment afterwards, Errors, 1853, Railey v. Bacon, 26 Miss. so as to enable the defendant to redeem 455. them at that place, even though there is sufficient reason to disbelieve the bills would have been redeemed if they had been thus presented the second time at the agency. 287. Banks compellable to receive their own notes in payment of debts or by way of set-off, at par,-s -see Robinson v. Bank of Darien, 18 Ga. 65; Niagara Bank v. Roosevelt, 9 Cow. 409; Bruyn v. Receiver, &c. 9 Cow. 413, note; Tillon v. Britton, 4 Halst. 120; Atwood v. Bank of Chilicothe, 10 Ohio, 526; Moise v. Chapman, 24 Ga. 249; Dunlap . Smith, 12 Ill. 399; King v. Elliot, 5 Smed. & M. 428. And see Fagan v. Stilwell, 19 Ark. 282; Paup r. Drew, 4 Eng. 205. 288. Though, as between individuals, where a note is payable in the issues of a bank, the value of the notes of the bank, at the time the debt becomes due, is the measure of recovery, yet a different rule prevails where a bank is suing upon a note payable in its own issues. In such case, the bank will be entitled to recover the full amount of the note and interest, because the defendant if he choose, even after judgment, discharge the debt with the issues of the bank. Mise. Ct. of Errors, 1848, Abbott v. Agricultural Bank, 11 Smed. & M. 405. can, That one indebted on a Subscription for stock, cannot discharge his debt in notes of the bank,-see SUBSCRIPTION. 289. A statute which provides that all debts due to the banks of the State may be paid at any time in the notes of such banks, gives to the maker of such a note his option to pay eith in the notes of the bank or in 290. Bills of a bank in the hands of a public administrator, and the moneys deposited to his credit, may be offset against a demand due the bank from him individually. So held, where he did not administer by virtue of his office as public administrator, but by virtue of a regular letter granted to him as administrator of the estate in each particular case. N. Y. Chancery, 1829, Miller v. Receiver of Franklin Bank, 1 Paige, 444. 291. A bank holding the bank bills of another bank, and demanding payment of the same, at the banking-house of the latter, is not bound to receive its own bills in payment, but may demand specie. U. S. Circ. Ct. Me. 1821, Suffolk Bank v. Lincoln Bank, 3 Mas. 1. 292. There is no obligation on a bank, in making an assignment of its effects, to proment of debts due to it; on the contrary, if vide that its notes shall be received in paythe object is, in contemplation of insolvency, an equal and fair distribution among its creditors, the notes cannot be so received, unless held in such a manner by the debtors of the bank as to become legally the subject of setoff. Ark. Supreme Ct. 1853, Ringo v. Real Estate Bank, 8 Eng. 563. 293. That assignees of an insolvent bank must receive payment of debts due the bank, in its own paper, whenever the bank would be obliged to,-see Union Bank of Tennessee . Ellicott, 6 Gill & J. 363; Bank of Maryland v. Ruff, 7 Id. 448; Bank of Pennsylvania v. Spangler, 32 Pa. St. 474; Commercial Bank of Columbus v. Thompson, 7 Smed. & M. 443; Robson v. Benton &c. R. R. & Banking Co. 7 Smed. & M. 724. 294. Where the property of a bank has been assigned on application of bank commissioners under the statute of New Hampshire, the bills of the bank cannot be received by the assignee in payment of debts due to the corporation,-see Matter of White Mountains Bank, 46 N. H. 143. 295. Whenever an instrument would be payable in bills of the bank if payment were claimed by the bank itself, it is also so pay, able to the receiver of the bank. Ga. Su- | The scller may surrender the illegal draft, and preme Ct. 1858, Moise v. Chapman, 24 Ga. 249.* recover, as upon an implied assumpsit, the 296. Foreign notes. A person lawfully value of the bills as measured by the discount holding a foreign bank note, and paying or agreed upon. Ib. delivering it to a domestic bank or banker, 300. A bill of exchange was discounted at not intending it to go into circulation, but Cincinnati by a foreign corporation, and was with the expectation and understanding that paid for in notes of that bank upon an agreeit is to be sent to the maker for redemption, ment that the notes should be put into circuis not to be deemed an offender against a do-lation in the northern part of Ohio,—Held, mestic statute-e. g. N. Y. Laws of 1853, 428, that such acts do not fall within the prohich. 223-which prohibits any person from bition, or contravene the policy of the act of circulating foreign notes at a discount greater February 24, 1848, "to amend the act supplethan that fixed for the redemption of bills of mentary to the act to prevent unauthorized banks of the State, on the ground that the banking, and the circulation of unauthorized bank exacted unlawful discount from him. bank_paper.” Ohio Supreme Ct. 1857, RezIt is only the bank or banker receiving the nor v. Hatch, 7 Ohio St. 248. notes in such case that offends against the act; and this does not exonerate him from liability on an obligation which he assumes in the course of the dealing. N. Y. Ct. of Appeals, 1858, Sackett's Harbor Bank v. Codd, 18 N. Y. 240. 297. The New York act of 1853, above mentioned, does not prohibit banks or individual bankers from selling or delivering such notes for any purpose except for circulation as money within the State. Ib. 298. A sale at a discount by one banking association to another, for the purpose of effecting their redemption, of foreign bank bills under the denomination of five dollars, received by the former not in payment of debts but at a lawful rate discount, is not a violation of the New York statute of 1830, ch. 295, prohibiting the circulation of foreign bank notes under the denomination of five dollars. The bank may send them home for redemption itselt, or employ another to do it. This is not passing, issuing, uttering, or circulating them within the prohibition of the statute. N. Y. Ct. of Appeals, 1862, Buffalo City Bank v. Codd, 25 N. Y. 163. 299. Where the selling bank takes in payment a time draft made by the purchasing bank, this is not a discount or loan by the seller, in violation of ch. 355 of N. Y. Laws of 1839, § 3; and the issuing such draft is unlawful-the statute declaring it to be unlawful for banking institutions within the State to purchase discounts in depreciated paper-only on the part of the purchaser. * But compare Pancoast v. Ruffin, 1 Ham. 381; Hallowell &c. Bank v. Howard, 13 Mass. 235, to the effect that if a bank has in good faith parted with an evidence of debt, the debtor cannot pay the assignee in paper of the bank. 301. The circulation of foreign currency is not prohibited by the laws of Wisconsin, and therefore incorporated banks may receive and pay it out, and their notes given for it arc valid. Wis. Supreme Ct. 1862, Ballston Spa Bank v. Marine Bank, 16 Wis. 120. 302. A bill of a bank in another State is a promissory note within the meaning of the Massachusetts Rev. Sts. ch. 127, § 2, prescribing a penalty for uttering and publishing forged and counterfeit notes. Mass. Supreme Ct. 1858, Commonwealth v. Woods, 10 Gray, 477; Commonwealth v. Thomas, 10 Gray, 483; Commonwealth v. Paulus, 11 Gray, 305. 303. Forged notes. Where the bills of a bank, after being prepared by the cashier for the president's signature, were stolen, and a forged signature of the president added,— Held, that the bank was not liable to pay a bona fide holder, on the ground that the cashicr had declared them to be genuine, nor by reason of the negligence of the directors in so keeping the paper prepared for signature. Mass. Supreme Ct. 1820, Salem Bank v. Gloucester Bank, 17 Mass. 1. 304. Where a bank paid notes on which the president's name had been forged, and neglected to return them till fifteen days afterwards,-Held, that it had lost its remedy against the person from whom the notes were received. Mass. Supreme Ct. 1820, Gloucester Bank v. Salem Bank, 17 Mass. 33. 305. Restrictions upon circulation. The Massachusetts statute of 1812, ch. 57, which prohibits banks, after the expiration of their charters, from issuing or putting into circulation securities for money, any does not extend to the assignment of a note for the purpose 433. of paying a debt owed by the bank before the notes,-see Portland Bank. Storer, 7 Mass. charter expired, no new obligation being contracted by the bank. Mass. Supreme Ct. 1817, Hallowell & Augusta Bank v. Hamlin, 14 Mass. 178. 206. Before the passing of the Massachusetts statute of 1816, ch. 91, there was nothing in the charters of the banks of that State which prohibited them from issuing drafts on a bank in another State, where they had funds deposited, for small sums, with the intention of their being circulated as bank bills. Mass. Supreme Ct. 1819, King v. Dedham Bank, 15 Mass. 447. 307. Under the statute of Alabama of 1837, providing that no limited partnership for the purpose of banking or making insurance shall be formed, an association established for the purpose of issuing bills to circulate as money is not prohibited from doing the act. The only consequence resulting from the act is to make all the partners alike responsible. Ala. Supreme Ct. 1846, McGehee v. Powell, 8 Ala. 827. 308. Associations incorporated by a law of the State of Ohio, as distinguished from foreign associations, are alone exempted from the operation of the restraining laws of that State, and alone authorized to issue notes and bills to circulate as money, as provided by the act of January 27, 1816 (Swan's Stat. 136), "to prohibit the issuing and circulating of unauthorized bank paper," and amendatory acts. Ohio Supreme Ct. 1851, Myers v. Manhattan Bank, 20 Ohio, 283. 309. Bank notes issued in violation of the safety-fund law of Michigan are void. U. S. Circ. Ct. Mich. 1843, Weed v. Snow, 3 MeLean, 265. 310. The provisions of the statute of Missouri relating to illegal banking (Rev. Code 1855, 286)-Held, not to apply to literary, scientific and charitable corporations. The evil the act designed to prevent was the introduction into the State by moneyed corporations, or corporations engaged in business of profit, of the circulation of foreign and worthless bank notes, to the injury of the people of the State. Mo. Supreme Ct. 1863, Christian University v. Jordan, 33 Mo. 528. Compare James v. Rogers, 23 Ind. 451. 311. That a bank prohibited from using its assets in trade may lawfully take notes payable in bills of other banks, and receive such bills at a discount in payment for their The provisions of the New York Restraining acts will be found stated supra 64–68. 312. So much of title 20, chapter 20, part 1, of the Revised Statutes, as prohibits persons not deposits, or discounting notes or bills, repealed. incorporated from keeping offices for receiving But this does not authorize a foreign corporation to keep an office for receiving deposits, or discounting notes or bills, or issuing any evidence of debt, to be loaned or put in circulation as money within this State; nor an incorporated bank, nor an officer thereof, to keep an office of deposit or discount, or be interested in any such association. N. Y. Laws of 1837, 14, ch. 20. 313. What acts are permitted. The provisions of N. Y. Revised Statutes (supra 67, 68) against unauthorized banking, as modified by the Laws of 1837, 14, ch. 20 (above mentioned), are to be regarded as a part of the system adopted with reference to banking business in the State; and the prohibition can only apply to prevent such business being done by individuals or companies not having banking powers, as is usually and ordinarily pursued by banks of issue, and of discount and deposit. Receiving deposits of money in trust, and issuing certificates therefor, making investments of their funds, and making insurances on lives, is outside of the general routine of business conducted by banks, and is not prohibited. N. Y. Ct. of Appeals, 1851, Mumford v. American Life Ins. & Trust Co. 4 N. Y. (4 Comst.) 463. 314. The New York act to restrain unauthorized banking is inapplicable to obligations not payable on demand. Obligations which circulate as money are payable on demand. N. Y. Supreme Ct. 1862, Hubbard v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co. 14 Abb. Pr. 275; 36 Barb. 286. 315. The plaintiffs, a company authorized by its charter to loan money on notes &c. lent its own checks upon the Tradesmen's Bank to L. and took as collateral security a note of a third person, indorsed by defendant. The checks which they gave were printed on bank-note paper, were drawn for small sums, as is usual with bank notes, and had the appearance of bank notes; and were issued by the plaintiffs for the purpose of passing, and usually did pass as such; and they were not paid at the Tradesmen's Bank, but at the office of the plaintiffs, and plaintiff's had no funds at the Tradesmen's Bank. Held, not an issuing of notes, within the fair construc |