Case ID: scl_10/html/0281-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Colcock, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John Haslett ads. Thomas Poultney.
    The drawer of a bill of exchange must have notice that it is dishonored to be made liable ; but this notice need not be, given by the holder.
    Notice of nonpayment of a bill of exchange must be given in a reasonable time.
    Assumpsit on a foreign bill of exchange, tried at Charleston,-18 — •, before Mr. Justice Grimke. Term,
    The bill was drawn by the defendant, in Charleston, *on the seventh of April, 1807, on the Messrs. Lees, at Liverpool. It was payable at sixty days, and accepted to be paid í>y John and Alexander Andrews, and protested for non-payment on the 12th. August, 1807.
    Mr. Wright proved, that he received a notice about the middle of November, (he being the endorser of the bill,) and a copy of the protest. That he called the same day on the defendant, and told him that he had received notice of the non-payment of the bill; was not sure whether he showed him the copy protest, but thought he either showed him that, or the letter which covered it. That defendant informed him, that it was a few days before, or on the day the bill became due, he knew Lees had failedl Witness said the notice was within time from Englapd; he had known it longer, and yet within time. That "he had been sued on the same bill, and judgment obtained against him, and that as a merchant he was satisfied with the notice.
    Mr. Smith, one of the house, of M’Laughlin & Oo., said, four months had been deemed in time; that he did not think it necessary to produce the bill and original protest when notice of non-payment was given to any of the parties; but he thought they were rather long in demanding payment in this case. This witness was one of the jurors who tried the cause.
    Mr. Singleton said he was the clerk of Mr. Haslett; and Lees, at the time of this failure, was indebted to Hazlett largely. Defendant had drawn other bills before and after this, which'were not paid. Lees’ estate paid Is. 6d. in the pound.
    A verdict was given for the plaintiff, and a new trial was moved for on two grounds:
    1. That notice was not given to the defendant of the dishonor of the bill; and,
    2. If given, it was not in time.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Colcock, J.

The general principles of the law, on this subject, *are so well settled, as to need but little exposition; but the difficulty generally arises in the application of them. It, cannot be doubted that notice is, in all cases, necessary to be given to all persons to whom the holder intends to have recourse -, and hence it is contended that the notice must come directly from him. But when the object of the notice is considered, there can be no good reason’given why this should be the case. Indeed, it would impose an unnecessary hardship on the holder, and frequently enable the drawer, or other person to be made liable, an opportunity of getting rid of his liability by the difficulty of proving this direct information. It is better for all parties, as well as indispensably necessary, that the notice should be given in any manner which may best suit the holder, than by a direct communication from him. It is better for the parties; because, as to the holder, it will be more easy when the notice has been by another, to prove that it was given : and as to the person to be made liable, it is better ; because, if not given in time, he might more easily show it, and further, because he would be more likely to receive it. In Shew v. Croft, Chitty, 166, note, it is therefore said it made no difference who apprised the drawer, since the eud of the notice was that he might have recourse to the acceptor. It is then clear, that in this case the defendant had notice.

The next consideration is, was the notice in time ? The rule is, that notice shall be given within a reasonable time after the dishonor and protest. In determining what shall be considered a reasonable time ; the distance at which the parties lived from each other; the mode of conveyance, and such like circumstances, are to be ascertained ; and if it appear tbat the notice was as early as could be made consistently with the means by which it must be given, it is in time. Chitty, 164. Now here the notice was given, at all events, in three months, and in one view of the testimony, at an earlier period. When the distance is considered at which these parties lived from each other, the one in *England, and the other here, and that there might not have been any vessel sailing at the time when the acceptor failed ; when it is recollected that four months, according to the testimony given, is considered by merchants of experience, to be a timely notice, and that Mr. Wright, the indorser to this very bill, so considered it, I think I am well warranted in saying that the notice was in time.

Eayne, for the motion. Gogdell, contra.

I am, therefore, against the motion.

The other Judges concurred. 
      
       1 Rich. 371; McM. Eq. 421.
     
      
       Ante, 439.