Case ID: scl_1/html/0243-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      The Court\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Administrators of Ash against the Executors of Brewton.
    Interest rj allowable on an acceptor! hill of exchanges a-gniii&t the acceptor ;iho9 no protfcsc $ where there is no special acceptance.
    THIS cause was tried before a special jury» Mr. 'Chamfneys, in 1775, drew an inland bill of exchange on the deceased Mr. Brewton, for 300/. currency, and upwards, in favour of Ash, payable at fourteen days, which. bill Breivton accepted, being for two casks of indigo sold to Brewton by Champnei/s. It did not appear that any protest had ever been made for non-payment, or even any demand made for the money ; but there having been mutual dealings between Brewton and Ash, the matter laid over as an article of account between the parties till they both died, and until the present suit was commenced.
    
      Parker objected to the allowance of any interest until after suit brought, on an inland bill of exchange, accepted by Brewton in his life-time. He rested his objection on the authority of the case of Lang v. Brailsford ;
      
       and contended, that a protest was necessary, or a demand ought at least to have been proved, to entitle the plaintiff to interest.
    
      Pringle, in reply,
    said that the acceptance in the case of Lang v. Brailsford, was a special one. The bill thei-e, was drawn by Powell, flopton U Co. at two years sight, and accepted by Brailsford, payable at the house of Broxun £s? Collingson, London. This, therefore, was such a special acceptance, as made the demand on Brown ft? Collingson absolutely necessary, when the bill became due, or a demand of Brailsford after it became due ; neither of which was proved in that case. This case, therefore, was widely different. Here was no special acceptance ; payable at no particular place ; but was unconditional and transitory, always attached to the person of the acceptor.
    
      
      
        Ante, p. 222.
    
   The Court

(present, Waties and Bay, Justices)

were dearly pf opinion that interest ought, in this case, to be recovered from the day that che bill became payable, though no protest teas made, or demand proved. For a protest is only necessary, in order to entitle the payee to damages against the draxver. Cun. Law of Bills of Exchange, 29. That the drawee is the original debtor after acceptance. 2 Burr. 6”4, The drawer is only liable on his default. That in this respect, it might be compared to a note of hand, payable at fourteen days ; in which case, interest was clearly recoverable from the day the money became due. That Lord Hardwicke, in 2 Atk. 631. had settled the principle, which had never been shaken or questioned since.

They were also of opinion, that the special circumstances in the case of Lang v. Brailsford, made it very different from the'present case. For, where a bill is made payable, or accepted to be paid at a particular banking-house, there the party ought to resort for payment, when the bill becomes due, by the custom of merchants, before interest or damages can be recovered from the acceptor; otherwise, the funds which might be placed in the hands of such banker, to answer such draft, might lie useless,, without" fhe acceptor’s knowing whether the money was called for or not.

The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs, with interest from the expiration of the fourteen days, mentioned in the bill, to the time of verdict.