Central Savings Bank v. Richards

109 Mass. 413
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided March 15, 1872·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Mortoít, J.

It is the settled rule that a promise in writing to accept a bill of exchange, drawn or to be drawn, is a virtual acceptance in favor of a person to whom the promise is shown and who takes the bill on the credit of such promise. This subject was carefully considered by the court in the recent case of Exchange Bank of St. Louis v. Rice, 98 Mass. 288, and it is sufficient to refer to the discussion in that case. The case at bar falls within this rule. The telegram sent to the St. Louis Zinc Company was an authority for it to draw the bill of exchange in suit, and necessarily implied a promise to accept it. This telegram was shown to the plaintiffs, who thereupon discounted the bill. They took the bill upon the faith of the defendants’ promise, and are entitled to hold them as acceptors.

Judgment for the plaintiffs.

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

Central Savings Bank v. Richards, 109 Mass. 413 (Mass. 1872).

109 Mass. 413 (Central Savings Bank v. Richards) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Snyder & Blankfard Co. v. Farmers' Bank
16 A.2d 837 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1940)
Ozburn v. Corn Exchange National Bank
208 Ill. App. 155 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1917)
Barnsdall v. Waltemeyer
142 F. 415 (Eighth Circuit, 1905)
Ravenswood Bank v. Reneker
18 Pa. Super. 192 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1901)
Garrettson v. North Atchison Bank
39 F. 163 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri, 1889)
Nevada Bank v. Luce
1 N.E. 926 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1885)
Starr v. Murchison
1 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 413 (New York Marine Court, 1878)