Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1839

Harley v. Caldwell

Harley v. Caldwell
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas · Decided October 5, 1839 · Jones, Pettit, Stroud
2 Miles 334

Counsel

Hopkins, for the rule., Hirst, contra.

Harley v. Caldwell

Opinion of the Court

Pettit, President.—

This judgment is correct. We canjiot shut our eyes to the usual practice of depositing money in Banks and Savings Institutions. A book is furnished, and an entry of deposit is made. This entry is a promise to repay the amount on demand, and in this instance a balance is struck of the whole account in favour of the plaintiff. These constitute as much “ an instrument of writing for the payment of money” as any other form of written promise. A bank-book is viewed by our courts as high evidence; and public policy requires it to be so regarded. The safety of the depositor depends upon this rule of law; his book is the only evidence he is furnished with, and he cannot conveniently command any other.

Stroud, J., concurred. Jones, J., absent.

Rule discharged.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.