Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1880-03-16
SUPREME COURT.

D0C1B10nS OF tho COufC Oh LoeG RESORT
WASHINGTON, March l5.-The following de-
,isions were rendered by the supreme court to-
day:
No. 100. The United States, ex rel. Alvin G.
Phillips, ct al, plaintiff in error, vs. James
L. Gaines, comptroller of the State of Ten
nessee, in error to the circuit court of the
United States for the Middle district of Ten
nessee.
This was petition for writ of manda-
mus to the comptroller of Tennessee to COM
pei him to issue his warrant to- the state
treasurer for the pay ment of costs of prose
cution of Phillips and others for murder
in the United States circuit court
for the middle district of Tennessee in &C.
cordance with the judgment of that court.
This court holds that though the costs of
prosecution are undoubtedly the debt OF the
State, for which the comptroller may be
compelled to draw warrant upon the State
treasurer, the demand made upon him in
the present case by the REALTORS was I'M
authorized by law and consequently the
mendamus- was properly refused. The
judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
No. 1873. Merritt Cox and j. G. Whitlock,
plaintiffs in error, vs.. the National bank
of the State of New Nork, in error to the
circuit court of tho United States for the
district of Kentucky.
This was a suit brought by the bank
against the drawer, acceptor and endorser
of certified draft addressed to Cox &
Cowan, Troy, N. Y. and by them accepted
in the following form: accepted, Cox q
~E - -
being made, the bank, as the lawful holder
thereof, caused it to be protested, and insti-
tuted the present suit to
recover the amount. The drawer and
indorser set up the defense that draft was
not duly presented to the acceptor for pay
ment, and that the protest was irregular and
invalid for that reason. This court holds
that where no place of payment is expressed
in bill or note the general rule is that the
proper place of presentment is the place
where the acceptor or maker resides or does
business. In cases, however, like the present,
where the drawer of the bill lives and
does business in one town or city, and
accepts without explanation or correction q
bill addressed to him as if he resided in an
other city, the bill may be presented in
accordance with, its address even although
the holders know that the acceptor lives and
does business elsewhere. bill addressed
to Cox & Cowan, New York, N. Y, and by
them accepted without indication of any
place ofpayment, is presentable and payable
in New York, and may be duly protested
there, even although Cox & Cowan reside
and do business in another city or another
State. Every step necessary to bind the
drawer and endorser in the present case was
therefore duly taken by the holder of the
bill, and he il entitled to recover. The judg-
ment of the lower court is therefore
affirmed.
No. 1874. Merritt Cox and J. G. tOlardly,
plaintiffs in error, vs.. The National Board
of the State of New York, in error, to the
circuit court for the district of Kentucky.
The state of facts in this case is precisely
similar to that of No. 1873, and the judgment
of the lower court is affirmed for the same
reasons.
No. 1872. M. Deliand, appellant, vs. Myra
Clark Gaines. Appeal from the circuit
court of the United States for the district
Of Louisiana.
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.