Arnold v. Seifert

Appellate Court of Illinois

Arnold v. Seifert

76 Ill. App. 666, 1898 Ill. App. LEXIS 190

DecidedJune 21, 1898

StatusPublished

This text of 76 Ill. App. 666 (Arnold v. Seifert) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arnold v. Seifert, 76 Ill. App. 666, 1898 Ill. App. LEXIS 190 (Ill. Ct. App. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Horton,

after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

As counsel for appellants frankly state, the only question in this case is whether the suit was prematurely brought; or, in other words, was the debt due at that time %

The condition as to a demand is set out in full in the foregoing statement. By it the bankers “ reserve the right * * * to demand and have sixty days previous notice, in writing * * * whenever, in our (the bankers) opinion the same may be deemed advisable.” There is no testimony tending to show that appellants’ firm, or any one for it, exercised this reserved right and demanded the specified notice or deemed it advisable so to do. The giving of sixty days notice by the depositor was not a necessary prerequisite or condition of payment unless or until the bank exercised its reserved right to, and did, demand such notice. Hot having done so, the claim of appellee was due at any time. This suit was not prematurely brought.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Horton,

after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

As counsel for appellants frankly state, the only question in this case is whether the suit was prematurely brought; or, in other words, was the debt due at that time %

The condition as to a demand is set out in full in the foregoing statement. By it the bankers “ reserve the right * * * to demand and have sixty days previous notice, in writing * * * whenever, in our (the bankers) opinion the same may be deemed advisable.” There is no testimony tending to show that appellants’ firm, or any one for it, exercised this reserved right and demanded the specified notice or deemed it advisable so to do. The giving of sixty days notice by the depositor was not a necessary prerequisite or condition of payment unless or until the bank exercised its reserved right to, and did, demand such notice. Hot having done so, the claim of appellee was due at any time. This suit was not prematurely brought.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 Ill. App. 666, 1898 Ill. App. LEXIS 190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnold-v-seifert-illappct-1898.