Case ID: day_1/html/0011-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the whole Court,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sterry v. Robinson.
    In the Court below,
    William Robinson and Sylvester Robinson, Plain* tiffs; Stephen Sterry, Defendant.
    
    If a bill of exchange is not accf*p4cd, an action will lie «point, aga r.-i the dnuur, be fore the time ⅞11111* J " A mistake, in _ . the bill, of thecjuisUauujuncof tbe ili-av.ve, is immaterial, if she bill be presented. >> 'the right pers»n. ■„ • . ■
    A CTION of assumpsit, on a bill of exchange.
    The declaration stated, that the defendant, at the Isl-*i . . and oí St, Vincents, m the W est-Indies, drew a bill of exchange directed to Josiah Raymond, meaning Joshua 
      and therein and thereby requested said Josiah, alias Joshua, Raymond, at thirty days sight, to pay the contents of said bill to Claude Alexander, or his order; which bill, having been endorsed to the plaintiffs, they caused to be presented to said Josiah, alias Joshua, Ray-?no?ul, for his acceptance, who refused to accept the same. There was a protest for non-acceptance, and notice given to the defendant. Before the expiration of the thirty 'days, this action was brought against the defendant, as drawer, to recover the amount of the bill, with costs of protest, and ten per cent, damages.
    
      1802.
    
    To this declaration there was a demurrer.
    Judgment, by the Superior Court, that the declaration was sufficient.
    Ingersoll, for the plaintiff in error,
    urged, that the bill was directed to Josiah Raymond, and presented to Joshua Raymond; that these were different names ; and that, of course, the presentment was of no effect. He also contended, that the action could not be instituted, till the bill, by the terms of it, fell due. The contract between the parties was, that at a certain period after sight, the bill should be paid. The contract, then, was not broken, until that period had elapsed, and a demand of payment, and refusal, had taken place. Suppose judgment should be rendered for full damages, and after-wards the bill should be paid, 'litis would be a great hardship on the drawer.
    Dwight, fqr the defendants in error,
    contended, that as the bill was presented to the right person, and by him refused to be accepted, and was protested for such nonacceptance, the mistake of the Christian name in the kifl was immaterial. As to the time’s sot being elapsed, he urged, that the contract of the drawer of the bill was, ° _ that the drawee should accept it according to its tenor ; and that, if he did not, an action 'immediately accrued to the holder. The case of Milford v. Mayor 
      
       he cited, as full to this point. If the drawer is liable for the bill, he must also be liable for costs of protest and damages, which are corisequences of the non-acceptance.
    
    
      
      
         Doug. 55. See also Chitty 64. — Kyd 70. — Bull. N. P. 269.
    
    
      
       2 H. Bl. 378, Mellish v. Simeon.
      
    
   By the whole Court,

The judgment Was affirmed.