Case Name: William H. Wood & al. versus William Watson
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1865
Citations: 53 Me. 300
Docket Number: 
Parties: William H. Wood & al. versus William Watson.
Judges: CUTTING, Kent, Dicjkekson and Daneobth, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Maine Reports
Volume: 53
Pages: 300–305

Head Matter:
William H. Wood & al. versus William Watson.
If the notice to the indorser of the dishonor of a hill of exchange is such that he must know what hill is referred to, it is sufficient to charge him.
Mercantile usage in this State has established the damages on a dishonored hill of exchange on London at ten per cent.
The Court cannot vary this rule, in a monetary crisis, on account of a depreciation of the currency of the country. (Davis, Walton and Bab-bows,. JJ., dissenting.)
ON Agreed Statement.
Assumpsit against the defendant, the indorser of a bill of exchange for thirty-one pounds sterling, drawn by Gomes & Eilhos, at Rio Janeiro, on the Union Bank of London, 2 Princes street, Mansion House,' London, payable to the order of the defendant, and indorsed by him to the plaintiffs.
The only questions raised were in relation to the form of the notices and the damages.
The following is a copy of the bill: —
"No. 3543. (iTiS™!’) Rio de Janeiro, 2d August, 1864.
«5 g
"For £31.0.0d. At sight, pay this first of Exchange, 2d and 3d not paid, to the order of David Watson, Esq., the sum of thirty-one pounds sterling,
"Value of same,
" which place to account as advised by-. To the Union Bank of London, 2 Princes street, Mansion House. " Gomes & Filhos.
(00 270)
"Indorsed. — David Watson, jr., Wm. H. Wood & Son, M. Bolles & Co., pay to the order of B. S. Cohen, Thomas Groom & Co., B. S. Cohen.”
The copy in the protest of the notary was as follows : —
"Rio de Janerio, 2d August, 1864. For £31.0.0d.
"At sight, pay this first of Exchange, (2d and 3d not paid,) to the order of David Watson, Esq., the sum of thirty-one pounds sterling. Value of same, which place to account as advised by " Gomes & Tilhos.
"To the Union Bank of London, 2 Princes street, Mansion House, London.
"Indorsed. — David Watson, jr., Wm. II. Wood & Son, M. Bolle?/ & Co., pay to the order of B. S. Cohen, Thomas Groom & Co., B. S. Cohen.”
The plaintiffs sent the following notices to the defendant in the same envelope : —
"STATE OF MAINE.
"Cumberland, ss. "Portland, Nov. 18, 1864.
" To David Watson, Sir: -- & Filhos’ bill on Union Bank of London, for thirty-one pounds sterling, dated Rio de Janeiro, 2d August, 1864, payable at sight, in favor of your order, and indorsed by you, and payment having been duly demanded at said bank in London, and refused, as per protest returned, is protested for non-payment thereof.
" The holder requires of you payment thereof.
" Done at the request of W. H. Wood & Son, Portland.
"Yours, &e.,
"H. Ilsley, Rotary Public”
"Portland, Nov. 18, 1864.
"David Watson, Esq., Dear sir: — The bill on London wo bought of you for £31, drawn by Gomes & Phelos on Union Bank, Loudon, dated Aug. 2, 1864, Rio de Janeiro, has been returned, protested, the drawers having failed. Please come in and take it up.
" Yours truly,
"W. H. Wood & Son.”
To which the defendant replied as follows : —
"Limerick, Nov. 21, 1864.
"W. H. Wood & Son, Gentlemen: —I received your note to-day. I have been sick, shall not be able to come in for some days to come. As soon as I am able, will come in and see you about the matter.
" Yours, &c.,
"David Watson.”
Howard & Cleaves, for defendant.
The notarial certifícate must contain a copy of the bill. Edwards on. Bills, 694; Chitty on Bills, 455; Story on Bills, 276; Halliday v. McDougall, 20 Wend., 81; Bank of Rochester v. Gray, 2 Hill, 227.
Evans & Putnam, for plaintiff.

Opinion:
Appleton, C. J.
The protest of the notary shows a demand upon the drawee and notice to the indorsers. The defendant could not have been misled by the notice received: He must have understood to what bill reference was had. This is all the law requires.
The more important question relates to the damages to which the plaintiffs may be entitled.
Damages given on foreign bills of exchange, for non-payment, are as much part of the contract as interest. Bank of U. S. v. U. S., 2 How., (U. S.,) 711, 737. The percentage allowed by statute on the protest of a foreign bill is a commutation for interest, damage and reéxchange. It is a statutory liquidation of damages, by which the parties are to be governed. Lloyd v. McGarr, 3 Barr, 482.
Now, mercantile usage has established the damages on bills on London, in case of dishonor, in Massachusetts, as determined in Grimshaw v. Bender, 6 Mass., 157, and, in this State, in Snow v. Goodrich, 14 Maine, 235, at ten percent., instead of reexchange. This usage forms a part of the law of the State. It had been of so long continuance, that, in 1809, when the judgment of the Court in Grimshaw v. Bender, was pronounced, Mr. Ch. Justice Paesons said that its origin could not be ascertained. It must, therefore, be deemed a part of the» law merchant, and as obligatory as any portion of the common law, until it shall be modified or changed by the Legislature.
Whether- the rule of damages is established by statute or by a long continued usage, having the force of law, it is- to be deemed a part of the contract of indorsement. The rule referred to, not having been altered by the Legislature, must be regarded as remaining in full force. It is not for the Court to change the law, whenever- a monetary crisis occurs.
The rule may operate hardly in some instances, but it is for the party to obvíate this by a special contract, fixing the damages, in case of dishonor, at a specified rate, or for the Legislature to establish a new rule which in their judgment shall be more equitable. It would be an act of legislation for us to intervene by changing the existing law on the subject. Defendant defaulted.
CUTTING, Kent, Dicjkekson and Daneobth, JJ., concurred.