Case ID: h-mch_4/html/0350-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Chase, Ch. J.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GENERAL COURT,
    MAY TERM, 1799.
    Brown vs. Duncanson & Ray.
    Assumpsit upon an accepted inland hill of exchange, drawn by William Mayne Duncanson, on the defendants, in favour of the plaintiff.
    The plaintiff at the trial, offered in evidence to the jury, that on the 9th of February X 797, and for some months before and after, the defendants were joint merchants and copartners in trade, under the name and firm of Duncanson <§• Bay. That on the 9th of February 1797, the said Duncanson drew a bill upon the house of Duncanson <§• Ray, of Philadelphia, in favour of the plaintiff, for $2000, at 90 days sight. That on the 15th of February 1797, the said Duncanson accepted the said bill, in the following words and figures, viz. «Accepted— Duncanson cf Ray, 13 Feb. 1797.” That the signature to the said bill of “W. M. Duncanson,” is in the proper hand writing of the said Duncanson, one of the defendants, and that the signature of «Duncanson <$• Rat/’ to the said acceptance, is in the proper hand writing of the said Duncanson.
    
    
      The defendant, Ray, offered in evidence, that the bill was drawn by Duncanson to discharge a note drawn by him payable to a certain John Nicholson, and by him endorsed to one Laac Polock, who then held the same.
    The plaintiff then offered to prove, that he, at the time the bill was drawn, was not then present; that the same was obtained by the said Polock, payable to the plaintiff, and by the said Polock paid to the plaintiff in discharge of a debt lona fide due from the said Polock to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff had no notice ofthe circumstances under which the said bill was given. That at the time said bill was drawn, the defendants were both living in the City of Washington, in the same house. That Polock first applied to the said Duncanson to draw "a bill for the amount on London, to which Duneanson replied, he could not without first consulting his partner Ray; that some short time after, the said Duneanson informed the said Polock, that he had consulted his partner Ray, and that they could not grant a bill for the amount upon London. That Polock then proposed to the said Duneanson that he, should draw a bill for the amount upon the house of Duneanson <$■ Ray of Philadelphia, which the said Duneanson answered he could not do so without consulting his partner Ray. That some few days after the said Duneanson informed the said Polock, that he had consulted his partner Ray, and that he had his permission to draw as requested for the said sum. That accordingly the bill, upon which this suit is brought, was drawn ana accepted as above stated. That at the times when the said bill was drawn and accepted, the defendants were both in the same house, where there was at that time a public ball, where the same was done, but that the said Ray was not present. That the said bill was drawn and accepted in the city of Washington. ■
    
      Mason, for the plaintiff.
    
      Martin. (Attorney General,) Crunch, and T, 0. Bowie, for the defendants.
   Chase, Ch. J.

The court are of opinion that the evidence offered by the plaintiff is improper to be admitted to the jury, and do refuse to suffer the same to go to the jury. The court are also of opinion, and so direct the jury, that if they are of opinion that the bill was drawn for the individual debt of Duneanson, and that the acceptance was made by him without the knowledge or consent of Ray, that then the plaintiff cannot sustain this action.

The plaintiff excepted. Verdict and judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff did not appeal. 
      
      
        Duvall and Done, J. concurring