Harrisburg Bank v. Tyler, 3 W. & S. 373, 267 432 Fitzpatrick v. Allen, 30 Sm. 292, 28 153 563 Hart v. Boller, 15 S. & R. 162, 167 Hazlebaker v. Reeves, 2 Jones, .264, 537 Heck v. Shener, 4 S. & R. 289, 402 Heiston v. Fortner, 2 Binn. 40, 167 Heitzman v. Divil, 1 Jones, 264, 143 | Helme v. Ins. Co., 11 Sm. 107, 433 Hemphill v. Eckfeldt, 5 Whar. 274, 482 Hendrickson v. Evans, 1 Casey, 441, Henry v. Horstick, 9 Watts, 412, Johns v. Lantz, 13 Sm. 324, Johnson v. Hart, 3 Johns. Cas. 329, 537 230 ΚΑ 138 138 78, Francis v. The Ins. Co., 6 Cowen, 430 Kinsel v. Ramey, 6 Norris, 248, 290 Knecht v. Ins. Co., 7 W. N. C. 491 Graham, 13 Sm. 290, 390 McCall v. Lenox, 9 S. & R. Moroney's Appeal, 12 Harris, 372, Morgan . The Vale of Neath Ry. Co., 35 L. J. Q. B. 23, Morrow v. Brenizer, 2 Rawle, 185, Morse v. Buffalo Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 30 Wis. 534, Moss's Appeal, 11 Casey, 162, 138 Mulherrin v. Del. Lack. & Western R. R. Co., 31 Sm. 366, Mullan v. Phila. & Southern Mail S. S. Co., 28 Sm. 25, 339 Mulliken v. Graham, 22 Sm. 490, Mundorff v. Wickersham, 13 Sm. 87, Musser v. Hyde, 2 W. & S. 314 326 Myers v. Harvey, 2 P. & W. 478, 143 104 554 460 109 506 196 326 70 322, 195 NAG Maguire v. Middlesex R. Co., 115 Mass. 239, 470 AGLE'S Appeal, 1 Har. 260, 460 Naglee v. Ingersoll, 7 Barr, 185, Nailer v. Stanley, 10 S. & R. 450, Neely v. Grantham, 8 Sm. 433, 400, 460 New York & Maryland R. R. Co. v. Winans, 17 Howard, 30, Nice's Appeal, 14 Wr. 143, Nokes's Appeal, 4 Rep. 80, North American B. & L. Asso. Presbyterian Church Corpor. v. 486 312 138 8 486 Railroad Co. v. Hendrickson, 30 Sm. 182, 151 70 290 482 332 Manle v. Ashmead, 8 Harris, Maynes v. Atwater, 7 Norris, Norwich v. Ins. Co., 6 Blatch 495, 167 496, 143 ford C. C. R. 241, 430 Rees v. Emerick, 6 S. & R. 286, 106 Smith v. Com'th, 4 Sm. 209, 410 xvi TABLE OF CASES CITED IN SUPREME COURT OPINIONS. Reitenbaugh v. Chester Val. R. R. Co., 9 Harris, 100, Regina v. Garbet, 1 Denison's Cr. C. 236, Regina v. Great North of Eng 74 515 Shaw r. Robberds, 6 A. & E. 75, 109 Sheets's Estate, 2 Sm. 257, 216 Silverthorn v. McKinster, 2 Jones, 67, 460 land Railway, 9 Q. B. 315, 130 Simpson v. Kelso, 8 Watts, 247, 460 VAN Regina v. Lewis, 9 C. & P. 523, 410 245 ANATTA v. Anderson, 3 Bin. 417, Van Valkenburgh v. Ins. Co., 70 N. Y. 605, 388 109 Vos v. Robinson, 9 Johnson, 388 Rex v. 300, Rex v. Butler, 6 C. & P. 368, Rheem v. Naugatuc Wheel Co., 9 Casey, 356, Bootyman, 5 Car. & P. 355, 359 ceiver, 13 Ohio St. 123, Warfield r. Fox, 3 Sm. 382, 100 324 117 410 94 Rhodes v. Dunbar, 7 Sm. 274, 135 460 377 Waring v. Cunliffe, 1 Ves. Jr. 2 201 Watson's Ex'r v. Stern, 26 Sm. 220 267 21 105 167 430 Rogers v. Burns, 3 Casey, 528, 474 Roland v. Tiernan, 8 W. & S. 193, 125 Rolph v. Crouch, 3 L. R. Ex- 482 138 Steinbacher v. Wilson & Young, 153 153 Wr. 358, 398 Williams v. Davis, 19 Sm. 21, 355 Willing v. Peters, 7 Barr, 287, 460 Willis v. Hanover & Germania SAAM Sands, Receiver of Colum bia Ins. Co. v. Hill, 55 N. Y. AAM v. Saam, 4 Watts, 432, 402 TAYLOR AYLOR v. Mitchell, 7 Sm. 386 Ins. Co., 8 Reporter, 343, 109 Wilson v. Murphy, 1 Phil. 106, 230 Wilson v. Shoenberger, 10 Ca 245 162 430 Thomson v. Dougherty, 12 S. & R. 448, 355 271, Scott v. Heilager, 2 Harris, 238, 362 Seibert v. Butz, 9 Watts, 494, 216 Seibert v. Kline, 1 Barr, 38, 58 Seibert v. Levan, 8 Barr, 383, Selden v. Merchants' Nat. Bank of Meadville, 19 Sm. 424, Senseman v. Hershman, 1 Norris, 83, Sexton v. Wheaton, 8 Wheat. 482 25 13 Eng. Law & Equity, 506, 70 Winslow v. Leonard, 12 Har. 355 432 537 8 Trego v. Lewis, 8 Sm. 463, 105 269 Woods v. Watkins, 4 Wr. 458, 520 229, Shaffer v. Greer, 61Norris, 370, 91 Sharpless v. Phila., 9 Harris, 355 147, 371 Sharpless v. Ziegler, 8 W. N. C. 190, 514 ZA ERGER v. Warren, 7 Casey, Young. Lyman, 9 Barr, 449, 557 ACK v. Penna. R. R. Co., 1 Casey, 394, 36 74 WEEKLY NOTES of Cases. VOL. IX.] THURSDAY, AUG. 26, 1880. Supreme Court. Jan. '79, 82. the defendants' place of business was Philadelphia. The summons issued April 23, 1877. The declaration contained the common counts only, to which defendants pleaded non-assump[No. 1. sit, payment, and set-off, with leave, etc. They also filed a special plea, and demurred to plaintiff's replication thereto. Upon the trial of the issues joined upon the first three pleas, before FINLETTER, J., the plaintiffs proved that they kept a deposit with defendants, and offered in evidence an account stated, rendered to them by defendants, showing a balance due March 31, Feb. 20, 1880. Dougherty Bros. & Co. v. Central National 1877, of $17,538.18. They admitted a credit Bank. Banks and their depositors Discount of notes-Insolvency of depositors-When banks may charge an insolvent depositor's account with the amount of an unmatured note due to it-Rights as against assignees of deposit by check or otherwise. of payments subsequently made, amounting to $3138.55, which left a balance to their credit of Insolvency $14,399.63. They also offered in evidence three drafts, all dated April 2, 1877, drawn by them Weir, cashier, or order, for $5000; No. 7610upon defendants, as follows: No. 7609-J. W. J. W. Weir, cashier, or order, $800; No. 7612G. W. Hunter, or order, $7500; each being duly endorsed, and protested for non-payment; and an assignment by plaintiffs to the said Hunter and Weir, dated April 23, 1877, of the said sum of $14,399.63, on deposit with the defendants on that date. Objected to by defendants; objection sustained, and exception granted, to plaintiffs, who then closed. In case of the insolvency of the borrower before actual payment of the money by the lender, an equitable right, analogous to the doctrine of stoppage in transitu before the actual delivery of goods, may be exercised by the lender. Although the relation between a bank and its depositor is that of debtor and creditor, and the bank has no lien upon the fund on deposit for the depositor's future liability to it, and although a depositor may assign his deposit for value by check or otherwise, notwithstanding the fact that the bank holds liabilities of the depositor unmatured at the time of the notice of the assignment, nevertheless, when a bank has extended its credit to a depositor by discounting his note, but learns of his insolvency before payment, or notice of any checks drawn upon the fund, the bank may withdraw the credit upon tendering him the consideration-i. e., the notes and the amount of the discount. Defendants proved that, at some time previous to April 2, 1877, they had discounted for plaintiffs a note for $15,000, which became due on April 2, and on the written application of the plaintiffs, dated March 27, 1877, the bank, by letter dated March 28, consented to renew this for thirty days from its maturity. A new note, with the amount of the discount and collaterals, was sent to the bank March 31, 1877, and the original note was returned to the plaintiffs by mail, April 2, after bank hours. On April 3, plaintiffs, who had become insolvent, failed to open their doors for business. Hearing of this fact on the morning of the same day, defendants immediately charged the plaintiffs' account with the amount of the original note, due April 2; credited them with the discount received with the renewal note, so that defendants' books showed a balance due them on an over-drawn account, and tendered the new note, with the amount of the discount and collaterals, to the plaintiffs, demanding a return of the original note. They then made an unconditional tender. The defendants put in evidence assignments for the benefit of creditors, executed by two of the plaintiffs, dated April 3, 1877, and a certified copy of a judgment for $25,000, confessed by Error to the Common Pleas No. 3, of Phila- | W. E. Dougherty, one of the plaintiffs, to John delphia County. On March 28, 1877, a bank agreed by letter with its depositor, A., to discount a new note in renewal of one already discounted and maturing on the following April 2, and received the new note and collateral, with the amount of the discount, before that date. On April 2, after business hours, the bank returned the original note. On April 3, the bank learned that A. had that day confessed insolvency, and the bank thereupon charged A.'s account with the amount of the renewal note, tendering back the note and collaterals, and the amount of the discount. In a suit brought before the date of the maturity of the renewal note by A. for the use of B. and C., Folders of checks drawn by A. on April 2, but not presented for payment until after notice of the insolvency had been received by the bank, and also assignees by assignment under seal of the whole fund on deposit: Held, that the plaintiffs could not recover. MERCUR and STERRETT, J.J., dissent. Assumpsit, by Dougherty Bros. & Co., against the Central National Bank. The plaintiffs were a banking firm doing business in Harrisburg; VOL. IX.-1 J. Fitzpatrick, in the Court of Common Pleas of |