The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1849-11-20

The decision rendered by Judge Strawbtidge, Of
the Fourth District Court in the case of Nimick
u.s. Martin u Co., will be found interesting to mer-
chants. The action was on a bill of exchange for
$780, drawn at sight by Martin & Co, Of this
city, on J. 5. Lake & Co.. Of New York. Payment
being refused presentation the bill was protested
for non-payment and suit instituted. There was
no protest for non-accePtanee. The following are
the reasons given by the Judge for sustaining the
action of the plaintiff;
The question mainly debated in this case is whstber
bill ofexchange at sight is payable presentation snd
tied to grace?
On the abstract question: part Of the common law.
have now nor have for Thirty yeaH had The ssSt
doubt. Gritty in hsTesse Bills page 4O9 speaks Of
difference in decisions and tealises the subject but
concludes that it settled that The days Of grace
allowed" Judge Kent, in his Commentaries. vol 3,
100 similar expressions but qualities th the better
opinion" Neither Of them refer any decision. has
the Ielsufch Of any engaged in this case found
which Euzain the position Of the defendant. The
reened to those Of ChiY and Bailey, who admit the
days of grace and Kid and Beaus, who deny them, with
out citing authority and the foreign writer's Pother
and JOuse. OF these latter may be remarked that
wthstanding the great weight due the opinion Of
POthier the given By him. viz the Inconvenience
traveller might sustun BY waiting whilst the days Of grace
running" is insufficient show that such stbe law
The Inconvenience might easily be avoided by taking
dratt at sight without grace (which By the way though
and ineOnguOus act il al drafts sight payable on
device almost universal IN this eouStry Of bsBE check
BE the opinion OF these civil law writers correct not
esablsh such be the law merchant the city
Of New York. If we liberty examine into the
reason Of the thing would much stronger in favor
o. Eht DRAFT than oil one al sixty days or SIX months
The plaintiff however relies on the usage Of New York
and under common issued rom this Count he has pro
dUes mass Of proof almost Overwhelming. Some Oppo-
more such could have beeh produced it's the Of the
defendant not to have done The Court cannot hesitate
chants 4wyen brokers and notares almost unanimously
position and very high authority and hiss been laid
be ore the Court to abh impeach the rule that where
the lay clear proof Of custom cannot be received to vary
it." concur in the opinion OF judge Story 81 Summers
Report siI that qsages amongst merchants are 2 b
and may be added, crude opinions Of the laws, and
not from the knowledge and experience of numerous
and facts but he asserted that they to be dare
gafded Perhaps these conflicting opinions might be
Of positive legislation and fixed rule which certainly
not BE yaHed By usage whilst ohe were OF CONNER
scal laws almost wholly dependant the usage OF
chants which il would be difficult to assign ans
good why system based on custom should be
changed in the manner Indeed in case referred to
By Chiy, Judge Butler mentioned bei0Ie Justice
Wes in London, where it was lett to Jury Of merchants
who decided (Of course under The cusom that days Of
were allowed On sight bills 10 one would think Of Offering
Of pnmogentue existed there. Nor would Think,
to pay in bank before sOcock or they would be
/ subject TO protest
wheIe the construction of policy here different rum that
adopted n England, and like differences exist IN different
/ States, all arising out OF usage.
IL Is however Necessary in this reconcile
these differences. The of RenneT The Bank OF
Columbia. 9Th Wheaton So appears The Court decisive
Of the present The bill hee sued had not been pro.
tested until the fourth day after that OF payment and b.
the general law merchant the liability OF the endOeF
gone This was, however, shown tobe in conformity with
usage OF the Banks The DISTINCT and the shown
the plaintiff had judgment If then, The custom Of
community vary tbs law by adding lOuGlh day Of
abndge them day dispense WIKI them alto
geher here the proof dOe5 esthbh that for forty
usage "a The city Of New York has been 10 pay sgHt dra
| on pressntment protest followed.
has escaped the notice Of the Govt that the test
given IN RenneE not excepted and 2dy
that of Judge ThompsOns expresIons appear Ia
the fact Of defendants having before dealt with IN
Bank aud knew hes mode of business But leaving tss
out view, the broad principles lad down and who
the decided all that Is in here. Judi
ment therefore rendered for the plaintiff with damag
aud costs - LivmgstOn for plaintiff Kendall 4 H0wa
for defendants.