De Land v. Dixon National Bank

Citations

• 111 Ill. 323

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence — as to condition of bank account — countervailing testimony as to payment. Where a bank depositor, in a suit against the bank, shows his deposits of money, the burden will rest upon the bank to establish, by competent evidence, that the same has been paid out by or under the authority of the depositor.</p> <p>2. Credibility of witnesses — and weight of testimony — the jury to determine. The jury are the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses and of the weight of the evidence, and the court, in its instructions, should not infringe upon this rule,' but should leave the jury free to determine for themselves the weight of the evidence, and on which side it preponderates.</p> <p>3. An instruction that if the jury believe, from the evidence in the case, that the plaintiff has proved his case by only one witness, and that he has been contradicted as to all material portions of his testimony by one witness of equal credibility and means of knowledge, then, as a matter of law, the plaintiff has not proved his case, is erroneous, even if there was no other testimony in the case except that of the two witnesses, and especially when the plaintiff had made out his case independently of the testimony of himself.</p> <p>4. Agency — ratification by acquiescence. The fact that a depositor in a bank remained silent for over two years after being informed that the cashier had signed his name to a check, and took no measures to assert his rights, may be regarded as a strong circumstance tending to show that the cashier was authorized to draw the check; but it is error to instruct the jury, as a matter of law, that if the depositor neglected to repudiate the act within a reasonable time after being informed of the facts, he thereby ratified and confirmed the act of the bank in charging him with such check.</p>