An interesting judgment was rendered on Wednesday by Judge M.D. Purdy in the U, 8, Court for China in favour of the Citizens Trust, and Savings Bank of Chicago and against Mr. Lansing W. Hoyt Shanghai, and which involved the! Payment of a promissory note ex-cuted contemporaneously with a settlement agreement in Chicago. 'The judgment rendered yesterday' overrules a judgment in the same case rendered in Mr. Hoyt's favour January 5, 1926. Messrs. Chal-aire and Franklin represented the 'M, Citizents Trust and Savings Bank, the successful plaintiff, and Messrs. 'Schuh! and Schoenfeld' appeared for the defendant, Mr. Hoyt.
The facts of the dispute between the Chicago Bank and Mr. Hoyt ay pearing in the opinion indicate that, the parties entered into an agres-ment on December 27, 1923 in, Chicago whereby Mr. Hoyt acknow-Tedged being indebted to the Bank in the sum of U.S$9477.78. The agreement provided for the payment of U.S.$7,360 of the larger amount in instalments over a period of three years, the balance U.S.82,- 127.78 to be remitted provided each of the instalment payments were made by Mr. Hoyt as they became due, The amount of U.S.$2,127,78 was represented by a demand pro-misery note executed by Mr. Hoyt in favour of the Bank. It was upon that note that the suit in question was brought, th Bank claiming that Mr, Hoyt had failed to pay one of the instalments of U.S.$750, duo under the contract, when it became due on January 1, 1926.
According to the opinion of Judge Purdy the instalment which became due on January 1, 1926, was actually paid by Mr. ' Hoyt to Messrs. Chalaire and Franklin, attorneys for the Bank, in the latter part of Tune, 1925, after demand had bec made for the payment of the larger note for U.S$2,128.78
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.