Case ID: binn_5/html/0541-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Tilghman C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Fisher and another administrators of Fisher against Evans.
    
      Philadelphia, Monday, July 12.
    The holder of a 1)111 muf.us? reasonable diligence toascerof'the drawer, for the !nn'P?sc oi Sivmg lum notice of its dishonour. It lookfovthe1*” drawer at the biliTs dated his residence is
    with the family a man, during hw absence at sea. is sufficient.
    IN ERROR.
    THIS was a writ of error to the District Court of the city and county of Philadelphia. r
    
    It was an action against the defendant as the drawer a bill of exchange, dated at Savannah the 26th of April 1809, and drawn upon Samuel Church of Philadelphia, in favour of . . 1 r Christian H. Fisher, the plaintiffs intestate, at five days sight, for 342 dollars 85 cents. The bill was presented on the 9th of May following, and noted for nonacceptance; and on the 17th of May was protested for nonpayment.
    It appeared upon the trial, that the drawer, Evans, was a sea captain, who was.frequently absent from his family, the prosecution of his business; but that his general residence was in Philadelphia, where he had a house in which his and family lived before and at the time the bill was dishonoured. The payee lived in Savannah. When the bill was ’"protested, it was sent to Savannah, at which time the defendant was absent from that place; but no notice was given to the drawer, nor was any inquin made for his residence, although the payee knew that he did not reside in Savannah. The drawee was indebted to the drawer when the bill was dishonoured, and he afterwards failed.
    The counsel of the plaintiff requested the Court to charge the jury, that because the bill was dated at Savannah, it was not necessary for the holder to look for the drawer elsewhere; and not being there, notice was dispensed with. The Court on the contrary directed the jury, that the holder was bound to use reasonable diligence to find the drawer, and to give him notice. The plaintiff- tobk a bill of exceptions.
    
      Shoemaker for the plaintiff in error.
    The place where the bill is drawn, must be taken to be the residence of the drawer. He asserts it by the date of his bill. He makes that the place, by the law of which damages are to be regulated, Slacmn.v. Pomery 
      , and where the holder is to resort in case the bill is dishonoured.
    
      J. S. Smith for the defendant in error.
    The only rule upon the subject is, that the holder must use due diligence to find the drawer or indorser, for the purpose of giving him notice. It is impossible to suppose that' the date proves the residence, or circumscribes the 'inquiries of the holder, particularly in a case where he knows the fact to be otherwise. The holder is not bound to follow the drawer round the world. He may inquire for his residence, and if his diligence is reasonable, and he does not find it, it is sufficient; or if he finds his family, he may leave notice there, though the holder, is absent; but he must use reasonable diligence, without regard to the place where the bill is dated. Muilman v. D'Eguino 
      , Heylin v. Adamson 
      , Chitty on Bills 167, (181), Cromwell v. Hynson 
      
      , Bateman v. Joseph 
      
      , Chapman v. Lipscombe 
      .
    
      
       6 Cronch. 224.
    
    
      
      
         2 H. Black. 569.
    
    
      
       2 Burr. 669.
    
    
      
      
         2 Esp. 511.
    
    
      
       2 Campb. 461.
      
    
    
      
       1 Johns. 294.
    
   Tilghman C. J.

I can find no such principle as that for which the plaintiff in error contends, that the place where the bill is drawn must be taken to be the residence of the drawer. The rule was rightly given by the District Court, “ that reasonable diligence must be used to give notice to “ the person intitled to receive notice.” Where a man has a counting house, or a known place of doing business, it is sufficient if notice is given there. In the present instance, the drawer was with his vessel at Savannah, when he drew the bill, and the payee must have known that he did not reside there. Thg proper place to have given notice, would ha.VS’TIJeen at his house in Philadelphia, where his wife and family were. For if he himself had been at sea, it would not be necessary to follow him. The case of Cromwell v. Hinson, 2 Esp. Rep. 511, resembles the one before us more than any which has been cited. It was an action against the indorser of a bill drawn upon London, dated and indorsed at Jamaica. The indorser was a sea captain who kept a house near London, where his wife and family resided, but he himself was generally at sea. It was held that notice to his wife in his absence was sufficient. In 1 Johns. 294, Chapman v. Lipscombe &c., the bill was drawn and dated at New Tork, and payable at Nezv Tork. The drawers resided at Peters-burg in Virginia; but that was unknown to the holder, who, on the protest of the bill, having made inquiry for the drawers, and received information that they resided at Norfolk, in Virginia, put two letters in the post office, one addressed to the drawers at New Tork, and another at Norfolk. This wag held to be reasonable diligence; but it was not insinuated that it would have been reasonable, if without making inquiry as to the actual residence, the letter had been put into the office addressed to the drawers at New Tork. We are satisfied that the law was properly laid down by the President of the District Court, and therefore the judgment should be affirmed.

Yeates J. gave no opinion, having been prevented by sickness from sitting during the argument.

Brackenridge J. concurred with the Chief Justice.

Judgment affirmed,