Case ID: nys_17/html/0726-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Fitzsimons, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hirschfelder v. Locey Min. & Manuf’g Co. et al.
    
    
      (City Court of New York, General Term.
    
    December 17, 1891.)
    Drafts—Non-Payment by Acceptor—Notice to Drawer.
    Presentation oí a draft at maturity to the drawer for payment is sufficient notice to him of non-payment by the acceptor.
    Appeal from special term.
    Action by Sigmund Hirschfelder against the Locey Mining & Manufacturing Company and another. A demurrer to the complaint was overruled, and defendant company appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before Van Wyck, Fitzsimons, and McCarthy, JJ.
    5". Aplington, for appellant. 8. A. Emanuel, for respondent.
   Fitzsimons, J.

This is an action upon a 30-day draft, dated 5th September, 1891, for $150, drawn by the defendant Locey Mining & Manufacturing Company, to the order of B. G. Oppenheim, and duly accepted by the defendant Locey; that before maturity it was delivered to Oppenheim, and, also before maturity, indorsed and delivered to plaintiff; that it was presented for payment to both defendants on October 8, 1891, and payment refused. The defendant the Locey Mining & Manufacturing Company demurred to the complaint upon the ground “that it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action,” which was overruled as frivolous. The demurrer admits all the allegations of the complaint; therefore admits that the draft was presented to both defendants, and payment thereof refused by each of them. The presentation to the demurring defendant of the draft for payment, I think, was sufficient notice to it that the defendant Locey had failed to pay the same. The law only requires that speedy notice of non-payment by the acceptor of a draft shall be given to its drawer, so that his rights may suffer no detriment by unnecessary delay. Such notice, the demurrer admits, was given in this case. I think that the complaint was sufficient, and the demurrer properly overruled. The defendant’s plea is purely technical, and should not be encouraged. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.