Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-06-08
oEFInnn
Opinions of the supreme Court fine state
Of Tennessee, as Nashville, December


Of Tennessee, az Nashville, OeeesnboI
Terms 1855. lEi srsH r-sf1
r. am s,aa r-s &, Cd rs ss-
asIlaay, chsa,asn 4 Co. IS The Bankof tie Uuion. =
dAys ChsathaE Cosss. he draFer Ia tennessee 81 I'm =
sNehanssiSr - " ca a5r q A1le, Of Ciae1naf Oho
Tlss etrSrs assisre5 srs en6n ne es.,.., 49, m
deieucsas gBon te GRAND Of re q notice q fi esp
and reIuss e PAY TIE e protest Of the No.a s n ed
October. nj; the bl b-FiaS ~ Juis breeding
st instT days he oBly proof Of THIS seans 10 -
body Of tbsFess, u ta Dofy drawers and erdorers
The Of 1870. eh 4 Is that when the Not.rg -
hsFeceFtsi esr IL his prof that he has given notice
&c.to the endefsers, makers or offers coneers se ro
isst shah be Prms ase evidence Of he TACT Of notice" Ts
sHbssaues lids done acs on expense
Of taking dPOstons and the loss Of rights tie accident
Tue s.ss s 70 3 sisted y ihe Notary either in pro
vas Efvsn the Fosoee = vAc It and all the psrc
ulars Necessary o nsSe CUT coed legal nee under she aw
public 9cen aud shea cees tast he has done an on
esl il must s presumed tt he hss do,e It correctly un
anti the eontrEry appears. It snly made DTia ca eT
ds1cs Il Is no hardship defendant rriyins upOs
ieqs hun % rsbG sas pSssamoiioa Il You'd Re ssT %
prove the facts By hs Sot II he had net done enough
s-r LIABILITY We are not prepared 70 With his Homer,
that as proof safcsa. on the question Of
notice We think paa facie under he Statute snd c
the h0rhen Of p-0fug the contrary upon sds'sndants
lt ne plaintiff sseeses uen Other grVund via this srror
TIE DESCENDANTS complain Of positions n The charge against
Iss The coart statss to The u-y has 70
ELECTS In the hands Of ts drawer meet bill tsy
would not 3 entitled % Eotes o The dsheoor snd that in ne
scs o. en- seeePtane By the draEee, sV-r Of sces
aaee nPon the S The law Eoad 10. ras presumption q
ss N the hands o. Tie E and he buFshsa Of prOof
etects would lie upon defsn1snt."
3D. "Thst the letter markell sxh &C. although specified
ne particular debt bsizr due frS the dsfsntts TIE CON
Pnants, miSh ~ the sse q pFe O. tho existence Of gay
oher deht be presumed n apply to ibis db and thsy
and promise 70 pay The daht notsithsandas thee hsl M
no notice. And that the ssiiler admissible uadsr H.
subsequently promise where the decaston elusned NJ
enc count VIII an avernsnr 7st tere had en and legal
notice and without excuse fr he Ent q t cunt
Ths letter marked exhlss &c ~, -p ~ Ageber cs.,s
= IT TIoxr. Dc %. 1851.
DAS z. oARTsR-Dssr SIR oadsy ca-a,bzm 8 &c I ave
stopped their furnace and vii Up their fu a
rzdiy possible. We about wd rs
aad mules al Of = sh We are oins 70 OOe IN
money, and among TIE Inhibited toyor has
a Se pay 70. or s 2s fs as "a 1s NJ S9f %
months. Like Others. foHd it Posslsto pay
viii sell everything bsioasins ts a and goah and pay
mat sc owe withou ts u ri atom Of sais L thlE,
hoEeter Hpen onsaAtiea With tho sngsssa with TIL
suit i ths safest AID gaiek solses de have
pay AZ Ee oss and E devote ourselves 70 Oils unt
Bniel 3 Carter, 70 ". N thls Ietsr was ADDRESSED
proved Be she President the Ba5k OF tbe Uno
and Il was SIS pr we'd thzi the letter in the had
There Dc BAT Little o. proof The except
ienees OF the defendants, their post o ts pacsos
By eonsignng their ir0n TO the drHEss Of this hiiLa
whether they had any ectI hand to meet this bill, had
given That i you'd be zprsar.
There no prof mat We eGa noee upon either side that
IN reference this state q ca are the legal positions a.
'umsd in the ebsrge eTroEeous ?
There 3 doubt that the drcscer Of the bill Is
le has in the drawee L. meet il o. some
So Gs ': s aS S' sy on a & s ie' But S1 ON
sR'iog TO The general RI chy Bills 49, and notes 3
he contrary apPesrs chiry Bills. 37 435 must
rove ths e ex-uss notice Note and Mzrh is1 Bylss
n bl % note l. 50 the only question upon this esa'ee
heer the waiver Of acceptance the bill the ance OF
eg 10 ihe hers CT ne fFasee and oheFs the burthe %
oylrg that fact upon eREe before be defend himself
pon the g uno want Of no ice Of dah0nor al maturity
mere are some elespons to the rule hat Of effects dis
hat s S sa, - bo ss ,5 s g t Sa mol rs91irs
hs precise question have referred to the anhs md
re unable to lad any The position Of the charge Wre
hare acceptance and this FOG want ofpreststfop
refusal acept upon presentation, the PRESUMPTION on Law
hat the dawse has the effects u the drawer hands over
rog3 In other Eer there no such presumption, unss
he bill is accepted or thAIt dos slise accept
nee II gees further aud bd5 at the pesumptOn against
hsm bere he Insist upon his right to notice OF demand d
sfusai 20 This esrtsBly conclus the case uon
far aeeptznes that INTENDED BY psrtss that ar
the paper And this St rel slso the JUDGE ebsrs og
ave the aame eject to ehsnge the burthen proof.
rineple. which be nnavs upon he ests5
shd practice We s net sole C see hos the &c. Of
lmpton in relation TO the eisence Uf eject in
le hands Of the drawee. We perceye reason vbv
lquid have the elect 20 change the UuThen Of proof
isct Tue law does not require the presentation
u, before maturity II srer hold the draWee, endo5rs
he holder DO ts, a his option, and BE- loses moth
g y The iiEr but the Obligation OF he In cass he
0uld scces Can the waiver Of acceptance Other
cit Tbs GaEs IN shs does not waive the presentation fer
ynlent aud II not it would clear hst al, notice
refusal 70 pay, would remain una6ecte and tlt any sTcu
y ae failure give hin necs Of that, have to b ads
1thy te holder b prOEnz against the esn pesarpo0 "
iects, there vas provision inside the bill
TIE charge this point introduces nez
Ale and distinction this branch of thr Law, which already
lhc1enty cllpalsd This practice Eaiviag acceptaac
perhaps modern invention 10 avoid the charges rensrsly
ade By business OF ceFtan Tor accst
II difficult what egE uid ufcu the
Sts OF TIE parties 20 bill. Aow in any Naycaure
r law merchant en- the question: d nO,c the esahs
resuIapOnS q Law proving mafts to xqusras
ety 50 We think Tiers thfs part charre
On l1e second point think his Honor ero1g
a. Win the exception Of the imp
loNietg7snt Of The debt ana p-ors pay it, in
soe.S1gs r kfs etscka7ge Al The gns Ad Con goc
ent lla Our suGcstionin thseSs &C STurlck
MON Bank Hump q, makes the full edge q his
arss ieRs4 le to the binding rec Of such sqceuE
oniss "A 20 The IDENTITY Of TIE dss rrsTrs lettsr
ID the a-t Ghty Of the eTsnoe under the
u THIS position 10 SpTol1iSs % pay u
'te Is srrOneons. Tilh0utts qutdcat that they
E time that they DISCHARGED Tor Of natier.
Il MY Be t1 the verdict Eo1 d have keen proper
outstanding these errors, Il the oUns 81 siver OF the
'tce, IF the Court had . in the protest roof Of nec=.
efre Trial should not given. he merits have
ached tell t f-nfants prrparei
sroYe the I1d ffcfI evidence Afforded b. n "
oe in the test, q It hzd been sdalttsd against ti.
The results that the judgnSu; rsusE V rsyeTssi-