Erwin Lane Paper Co. v. Farmers' National Bank of Constantine

30 N.E. 411, 130 Ind. 367, 1892 Ind. LEXIS 352
Indiana Supreme Court·Decided February 24, 1892·No. No. 15,437·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Miller, J.

The only question discussed in the briefs of counsel is the sufficiency of the complaint, which has been challenged for the first time in this court.

This was an action by the appellee against the appellants upon a promissory note made payable to “ Charles H. Barry, Jr., cashier of the Farmers’ National Bank of Constantine.” The complaint declares upon the note as being made payable to the bank.

The only objection urged to the sufficiency of the complaint is that the note is payable to Barry, and not to the bank.

A note payable to the cashier of a bank is to be deemed payable to the bank, and the bank may sue thereon as payee. Nave v. Hadley, 74 Ind. 155, and cases cited.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Erwin Lane Paper Co. v. Farmers' National Bank of Constantine, 30 N.E. 411, 130 Ind. 367, 1892 Ind. LEXIS 352 (Ind. 1892).

30 N.E. 411 (Erwin Lane Paper Co. v. Farmers' National Bank of Constantine) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

First Nat. Bank of Stratford v. Walker
1913 OK 624 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
Hunter v. First National Bank
87 N.E. 734 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1909)
Hodge v. Farmers' Bank
34 N.E. 123 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1893)