Case ID: scl_14/html/0013-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James Kennedy, ads. Abraham Motte.
    A receipt ofa part of an order from the acoeptbrjiafter protest of acceptor ant! drawer both, for non-payment, though without the knowledge or consent of the drawer, is not a discharge of.the drawer for the balance unpaid.
    Process upon an order by the drawee against the drawer, before the recorder of Charleston, whó made the following report:
    “ This order was dated 3rd October, 3 820, payable ninety days after date, and was drawn by the defendant upon the hey. A. A. Muller, by whom it was accepted on the 16th' November, 1820. After a regular demand, upon and a. refusal by, the drawer and acceptor, the order was protested for non-payment. Some time after the protest, the acceptor paid $30 on account. No steps of any kind were taken afterwards by the plaintiff to obtain payment from the acceptor. These facts were admitted, and under them the defendants counsel contended, that a receipt of part of the amount of the order from the acceptor without the knowledge or consent of the drawer, and without any steps having been taken to recover the balance from him, precluded the plaintiff from having any recurrence to the drawer. I decreed for the plaintiff. For. after a regular protest for non-payment, he was not bound to apply to the acceptor, but iqight, exclusively look to the drawer for payment. And the fact of $30 having been paid on account by the acceptor was a. benefit not an injury to the drawer.”
    A new trial was moved for on the ground:
    That a receipt of a part of the order from the acceptor without .the knowledge or consent of this defendant, was a discharge to him for the payme.nt of the balance.
    
      Submitted 2d March, 1825.
   Per Curiam.

This court concur in opinion with the recorder. The motion is refused.