Miller v. Bank of Orleans

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Miller v. Bank of Orleans

5 Whart. 503, 1840 Pa. LEXIS 243

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 13, 1840

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 5 Whart. 503 (Miller v. Bank of Orleans) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Miller v. Bank of Orleans, 5 Whart. 503, 1840 Pa. LEXIS 243 (Pa. 1840).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

While the defendant kept funds in the bank to meet the particular demand, he prevented interest, the deposit being equivalent to a tender. But when it was withdrawn and used by him, a case arose which very much resembles the Commonwealth v. Crevor, (3 Binney, 121,) in which a sheriff who had deposited money in contest, pursuant to an agreement betwixt the claimants, but'had subsequently withdrawn and used it, was held liable to the successful party for interest from the time it was taken out of bank. Even tendered money, subsequently used, bears interest; for a plea of tender without ‘ always ready,’ and a proferí of the money in Court, is bad. It is a rule, with scarce an exception, that he who has derived a benefit from the use of another’s money, shall pay for it; and such seems to be the principle of Fasholt v. Reed, (16 Serg. & Rawle, 266.)

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

While the defendant kept funds in the bank to meet the particular demand, he prevented interest, the deposit being equivalent to a tender. But when it was withdrawn and used by him, a case arose which very much resembles the Commonwealth v. Crevor, (3 Binney, 121,) in which a sheriff who had deposited money in contest, pursuant to an agreement betwixt the claimants, but'had subsequently withdrawn and used it, was held liable to the successful party for interest from the time it was taken out of bank. Even tendered money, subsequently used, bears interest; for a plea of tender without ‘ always ready,’ and a proferí of the money in Court, is bad. It is a rule, with scarce an exception, that he who has derived a benefit from the use of another’s money, shall pay for it; and such seems to be the principle of Fasholt v. Reed, (16 Serg. & Rawle, 266.)

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Whart. 503, 1840 Pa. LEXIS 243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-bank-of-orleans-pa-1840.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack