Case Name: Wilson v. Crowdhill
Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1811-05-29
Citations: 2 Munf. 302
Docket Number: 
Parties: Wilson v. Crowdhill.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 16
Pages: 464–465

Head Matter:
Wilson v. Crowdhill.
Wednesday, May 29th, 1811.
Debt — Acceptor of Bill of Exchange. — An action of debt will not lie against the acceptor of a bill of exchange.
See the same point in Smith v. Segar, 3 H. & M, 394.
This was an action of debt against the acceptor of a bill of exchange. Plea nil debet, and issue. After a verdict for the plaintiff, the defendant filed errors in arrest of judgment, the most material of which was, that the action of debt would not lie in this case. 'The county court gave judgment for the plaintiff, which the district court affirmed. The defendant obtained a supersedeas from a judge of this court.
Botts, for reversing the judgment,
quoted 4 Bac. (Gwill. edit.) 732, and the cases there cited, as conclusive.
Debt- -Acceptor of Bill of Exchange. —An action of debt will not lie against the acceptor of a bill of exchange. Smith v. Segar, 3 Hen. & M. 394. See foot-note to this case, citing the principal case, and showing that in Regnault v. Hunter, 4 W. Va. 269, the principal case and Smith v. Segar, 3 Hen. & M. 394, were disapproved.
The principal case is also cited in Farmers' Bank v. Clarke, 4 Leigh 609; Catlett v. Russell, 6 Leigh 374. In Hollingsworth v. Milton, 8 Leigh 50. it was held that, under the statute of Virginia, 3 Rev. Code. ch. 125, § 4 (equivalent to Va. Code 1860, ch. 144, § 10), an action of debt will lie for the payee against the acceptor of an order. In delivering the opinion of the court in this case (Hollingsworth v.
Milton) Judge Tucker said (p. 52): “In the cases of Smith v. Segar, 3 Hen. & M. 394, and Wilson v. Crowdhill, 2 Munf. 302 (which however were acceptances on bills of exchange), the influence of this statute (the one referred to above) does not seem to have been considered." See further, on this subject, foot-note to Hollingsworth v. Milton, 8 Leigh 50; monographic note on “Debt, The Action of" appended To Davis v. Mead, 13 Gratt. 118; monographic note on “Bills, Notes and Checks” appended to Archer v. Ward, 9 Gratt. 622.

Opinion:
Monday, June 3d. The president pronounced the opinion of the court, that an action of debt will not lie against the acceptor of a bill of exchange.
Judgment reversed, and entered for the defendant.