Clark v. Stackhouse
Opinion of the Court
It is clear that Hoyle could not maintain an action, against the defendant, on this check:
1. Because the check was not given to him by the drawer, or any person apparently au-thorised to pass it away.
2. Because, in his knowledge, the check was not drawn, in order to be paid, but for the special purpose of taking up a note.
3. Because he came by it unfairly, having taken it from the counter, without any authority from a person authorised to pass it away.
But a person, who cannot maintain an action upon a paper, may enable another person to sustain one, in certain cases. If the mail be robbed, the thief may not sue on the bank notes he may
When the day of payment of a note, bill, or check, is past, its circulatiofi gives rise to a presumption that it may have been paid, or that the person bound to pay it, has some reason to resist the payment of it. The person, therefore, accepting it, receives it, in some degree, at his risk. But in the present case, the check was received by the plaintiff, very soon indeed after its issue. If the Sunday be not reckoned, and it ought not, the check was not twenty-four hours old.
The check was payable to H. M. & Co's note, or bearer. The latter words repel the idea that it was exclusively to be used for the payment of the note. It may be fairly inferred that the words, H. M & Co's. note, were put in, as a memorandum for the drawer.
The circumstance of the house's failure, of itself, does not perhaps afford such a presumption
Verdict for plaintiff.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.