The folio wing decisión was rendered n the Supreme Court on Tuesday : Nelsou Sutherlaud and James F. Seeey vs. The First National Bank of Ypsianti ; error to Washtenaw Circuit. Opinión by Campbell, J. : The question in this case is whother ;he facts show the payment of a promissory note. The noto was dated August L, 1873, payable iu 30 days at tho bank of the defendant in Ypsilanti. Tho mater, on the 4th of September, deposited with the firm of Miller & Webster, of Ann Arbor, tho amount of the note, $410, with iustructions to send it to the Ypsilanti bank to pay the note. Miller & Webster gave the maker credit for the money on their books, and this oredit so retnained at the time of their assignment, September 14. On the 4th of September Miller & Webster wrote to the Ypsilanti bank for the note. On the 6th the Ypsilanti bank sent the note indorsed for collection. Miller & Webster left Sutherland's deposit unchanged, and made no return to the Ypsilanti bank, and left the note among their colleotion papers, where it was found by their assignee on the 15th. Between the 7th and 9th of September Sutherland was told by Webster that the firm had the note and that he oould cali and get it There was no communication between the Ypsilanti bank and Sutherland during the entire interval. Held, That there was no payment of the note. It was Sutherland's duty to see that it was paid at maturity, and instead of paying it himself he intrusted the money to his bankers who never applied it. The note was sent to them for a specific purpose, and no title ever passed to them on their own account. They never gave credit on their bookg to the owner, and never oancelled the note, but treated it as unpaid and uncollected. They simply failed to carry out Sutherland's instructions, and did no act whatever as agents of the bank at Ypsilanti. Judgment is affirmed with oost.