The Hillsborough recorder. [volume] (Hillsborough, N.C.) 1820-1879, 1852-03-03
IMPORTANT DgcIsnN.l
Q. p q 9. s.. d - -


Ne BH'k y a. So \ S.vtL cgpiEas
Tie Bal stceFs Pen.
Ths fsIIo~ius sqiniaa "a. ssli.s.slIs Res
ns. c.g. 49,
This is asssnpsit 90 Bank Note
Tor 800. dated 0rfsbev' 3st, 1884 And
payable 70 r. Rand or bearer on demand
- ~ fae branch h,sK Of Cape Pear al
Raleigh; pleas. non assumpsit and SCI
OF; and case agreed Mas Submitted d
tie Court to the following effect; Ths
note belonged 70 the PRINCIPAL hank II
Raleigh. and The Cashier, through !
notary public, presented itzttke branch
e, bank al Cape Fear al Raleigh on ths
2Isi of.Mareh, 1881. aud demanded
Y, payment. aad the Cashier Of the said
branch bank then offered in payment
n two bank notes for ESQ each. issued b,
the PlaEtls and PAYABLE on demand, the
one TO the bearer al the plaintiffs branch
bank Milton. and the other to the bear
er at the plaintiffs branch bank al
linWIlipgtan. andhe refused TO make paw.
snent 10 any otherway. The plaintiffs
sEeAgeRt refused TO accept payment in
= that mode. and this suit was then iDsti-
ni tuted. The Superior Court gave judy
d meat pro lorna for the defendant and
the plaintiff appealed. ni
MIS-, The defence would not be available
" at common law under either ISSUE By.
presenting the note for pa yment an ac-
ticn arose TO the plaintiff as the holder
and It Is, fully settled. thata promissory
\ note. made payable in the body Of II on
d demand at certain place, becomes due
only upon presentment at that place.
- Hence, the offer of the two notes for
S50iapaymen did not amount to paw,
ment, nor do they bar by way or set oh.
81 There was ut one period a conflict of
judicial opinions in England, in respect
toan acceptance Of a bill of exchange,
whether If given " payable AZ a par |
tticular place" ii was 10 be consider.
led q general acceptance or a spe-
ielal one.s requiring presentment at
! the place named and the point was
not settled until tina opinions Of the |
Lord Chancellor aud all the. Judges
!, We're taken on il in the case Of Rore
vs.. loi1ig, 2 Bligh 39l, and 9, Bruk.
AZ Blng. $50. Ia was there held, that
q declaration on such an acceptance
. was bad because II did not aver pre-
sentiment at the designated place. No
one Of Judges expressed doubt, that.
notwithstanding some previous aisi
Pf1us cases, the law was, that, if one
promise BY his note to pc y at a partiru.
lar day and place, there must be de-
mand there. Lord Eldon explicitly
land that down as the established law.
and be stated the reason to be, that the
place stands in the body Of the instru-
3 ment as part oft, which must be de. ,
! clared ON as u is,nand proved as de, i
cribed IN the declaration. Indeed il /
/, = an important part Of the contract |,
For, when one engages to paw money !;
3 generally without mentioning a place ,
Tor the payment. The law Is, that the /.
debtor must seek the creditor, whether
The Rayes or his assignee, and at his De- !,
rll ind him in order to save himself from
The payment of interest and an action.
Ny specifying the place both parties are :
I saved the trouble, but especially the !
maker, he knows where to take tbo j,
, money to meet his note at maturity. Il
! The law cannot bs said to be settled in !
ihe United States exactly in tho same /,
way,;ras IN some, and perhaps most :,
OF the Courts distinction has been ).
taken, that the declarations need not =
aver the presentment at the pla r.. but A.
the want OF it may be alledged as 4
Matter OF defence, If loss arose there. =
IRON, and the debtor WILDE discharged =
Pro-rafa; as il the note be PAYABLE at g
2 bank and the debtor deposit the mo. 3,
ney there and tie bank afterwards fail. :,
Hitaout going through tie cases in this n,
e9yniry in derail. IT saiIiccs to refer 10 ii
thatoi 5aslace rs. NC ConaeH, Is Peters. ~
SO, IN whch,most Of them we're cited Il.
and considered blythe Supreme Court r.,
as establishing that rule, and it was i
then adopted. 1t has indeed been an
que STONED beth by Chancellor Kent N
and Mr., Justice Story, who. hold the II,
rule laid down in England toebe the IA
true one, according to the plain sense ii,
oi the contract. Butitis not material ar,
which position is right in respect to lir
notes payable at a certain day as well sra
as place; since no one, either. to Eng III,
Iand or here, was supposed, that pre- ma
sentiment OF promissory note was not mo
Indispensable when, in the body, il i ma,
payable on demand at particular s;o
place; which is our case. Even the hp
,purt OF Kings Bench, whose judgment pr.
a Rowe vs.. Ko,aig as to the special ac. mol
,ePtanoe of bill, was reversed in the ,all
House OF Lords. held this ON demurrer M.
Q declaration by the bearer Of a note ior,
'ayabie on demand, against the maker, as
2 which presentment at the DESIGNATED nav
lace MAS not averred. Sa,uaaerson VS.. 10
Sores,: 4 East 5ea. The Judgment cas-,
.as founded On this; that the maker mi,
ID not appear to have been. in default az i
store suit brought; and that has not rl,a,
Ihseqnenily been questioned any where. The
IL