Skip to main content
· 1/15/1878

McLean County Bank v. Mitchell

Citations

  • 88 Ill. 52

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence—entry in bank-book, of deposit. A party’s bank-book showed two deposits, of precisely the same amount, on the same day, but it appeared the entries in such book were not made at the time of the transaction, but afterwards, from the ledger-book of the bank, and it was held,, that the party’s bank-book could not be regarded as controlling evidence that both sums were, in fact, deposited, but it might be shown that the entry was a mistake.</p> <p>2. Bank—right to recover for money drawn in excess of deposits. Where, by mistake, a double entry is made on a bank-ledger of a deposit made on one day, and such mistake is copied into the depositor’s bank-book, and he draws out the whole sum thus shown to his credit, and in excess of what he, in fact, has deposited, the bank, on establishing and explaining the mistake, may recover back the excess so drawn out by the depositor.</p> <p>3. Instruction—should not be contradictory. Where the real question was, whether a bank had given a depositor credit twice for the same deposit, and it appeared the depositor had checked out all so credited to him, and the court, in a suit by the bank to recover for the amount drawn out in excess of the actual deposit, instructed the jury that, if such were the facts, the bank could not recover, if they believed, from the evidence, that such double credit did not, in fact, give the defendant credit for more money than he really had in the bank, and there was nothing due the bank, the instruction was held to be contradictory, calculated to mislead the jury, and therefore erroneous.</p>

Judges: Craig

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.