The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1848-06-17
rANcFs on NEW YORK AND New Haven RAILROAD
estate line. Ito Chapel street, New Haven.

estate line. Ito Chapel street, New Haven
"CUsroM OF MERcHANr"-AN IMPORTANT LEGAL
QUESTION
In your money article, O fl days since, you gave
partial statement of recently decided in of
the courts of New Orleans which decision you remark
has produced great excitement in that city, and, if
confirmed by the Supreme Court of Louisiana, will
lead to revolution in the stem of drawing drafts
on this city, That the decision has produced great
excitement in New Orleans amongst the merchants of
that city, is true but do believe that it has
cited the surprise of respectable lawyer of either New
Orleans or New York. The District Court of New Or
leans simply decided that sight bills entitled to
days of grace, and that no custom of New York
chants, dispensing with days of grace sight bills,
would be recognised by tina court until it was shown
that such custom had been Jude tally allowed The
bills sued on were drawn by Warrck, Martin Co., of
New Orleans at sight, on Joseph Lake L. CO., of New
YORK. You state that the drawers failed between the
time of the drawing of the bills in New Orleans and
their arrival here - this statement is not correct
Warrick Martin, Of New Orleans, is gentleman of
strict integrity an honorable and is hig lilly
teemed by all who know him-he is incapable OF per-
forming so dishonorable act that of drawing a
draft knowing that it must be protested for want of
funds At the time the draft in question was draw
by Martin he had 900 in the hands of Joseph
Lake T. Co., in this cty-more than enough to pay
fund was received by Joseph Lake e. Co from Martin
after they (Lake Coz had failed and when the
holders Of the drafts applied for payment they were
provided no funds for their payment When these
sight drafts were presented to Joseph Lake Co. they
refused to pay them and Immediately thereupon hev
were placed in the hands Of notary and on the
same day protested for non-payment This proceeding
was clearly erroneous and illegal. The drafts should
have been presented for acceptance and if paid
the expiration of the three days grace should have
been protested for payment That sight bills are
entitled to three days grace has been frequently deter
mined by the courts Of the country, and greatly
surprised that any notary in this city should be gno
rant Of this fact-Iide Smiths Mercantile Law, ed of
1847 p. pa; note (n) there cited 1t was con-
tended on the trial of the in New Orleans that,
by custom of merchants in New York. days of grace
were not allowed on sight bills, and when they at
tempted introduce evidence of the existence of such
a custom, they were stopped by the court B D. How
ard, Esq, of the abest commercial lawyers in the
Union Of the legal firm of Kendall Howard, New Or
leans, acting counsel for the drawers objected to
the reception of this testimony and sustained his OBJ
lection with great ability and learning he insisted
that three things necessary to settle usage
rule of the law merchandise Proof of the usage
I'd The legality of it, at least that it is incon-
sistent with the common law, but allowable devia-
ton therefrom and 3D. The allowance of the custom
Judciay. He cited the very appropriate declaration
of the late Lord Tenterden Treatise Shipping 472
quent use, and even of general convenience is not
aud ought not to become in all its consequences part
of the law of the land" and quoted Judge Story as
having said that of the two alternatives it is
eddy better that the merchants should receive their
from the courts than the courts theirs from the
chants" In support of his position, he referred to IL
Peters, 49, Barn Aid, TAG; IS Johns Reps, 1872;
Story Rep, 81; Story Rep, H. 81, As, SO; Wend
b47; III AID. Ellis, $50; Howard, 515 Rus Fact. t.
Br., II; Bells Comm. on Mere. Jur, $780, That the
Supreme Court of Louisiana will affirm the decision of
the District Court, there cannot be doubt There
are about $1,000 involved in the decision