Case Name: CROSBY VS. MORTON ET AL.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1839-04
Citations: 13 La. 357
Docket Number: 
Parties: CROSBY VS. MORTON ET AL.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 357–360

Head Matter:
CROSBY VS. MORTON ET AL.
APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP THE PIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, JUDGE BUCHANAN PRESIDING.
Bills of exchange payable after date, are not required to be presented for acceptance, as between the holder and endorsers ; it is only necessary to have bills payable after sight presented for acceptance, to give them a date.
Endorsements made by a partnership on a bill of exchange, bearing date about three weeks before its dissolution, will be presumed to have been made during the continuance of the partnership.
Interest will not be allowed on damages arising on protested bills of exchange.
This is an action against the endorsers of a bill of exchange, which was protested for non-payment at maturity.
The defendants severed in their answers. The defendant, Patterson, pleaded a general denial, and averred that the plaintiff was not the true holder of the bill; that he knew it was endorsed for the accommodation of the drawer alone; and, lastly, that the real holder or owner, had given the defendants time, which had not expired.
Morton pleaded the general denial, and denied specially that the plaintiff was the true owner of the bill.
The following is the exact tenor of the bill on which this suit is instituted :■—
“ New-Orleans, 24th February, 1837.
“ Exchange for $10,000.
“ Seventy days after date of this first of exchange (second, and third, &c.), pay to the order of Morton & Patterson, at the Phoenix Bank, New-York, ten thousand dollars, value received, and place the same to account, as advised by
“ Louis I. Fourniquet,
“ Messrs. Robertson & Branda, Norfolk, Virginia.”
Endorsed—
“ Pay to the order of John Crosby.
“ Morton & Patterson.”
“ Pay to the order of R. G. Dixon, Cashier, &c.
“ John Crosby.”
“-Pay to the order of J. Delafield, Esq.,- Cashier.
“ R. G. Dixon, Cashier.”
This bill was sent on to the Phoenix Bank for collection, and the notary of the bank states, in his protest and testimony, that, on the 8th May, 1837, at the request of the | bank, he presented said bill to the paying teller of the Phoenix Bank, where it was made payable, and demanded of him payment thereof. He answered, that “ it could not be paid ;” wherefore it was protested, &c.
There' is no evidence that the bill was ever presented to the drawees, Messrs. Robertson & Branda, in Norfolk, for acceptance.
The evidence clearly makes out that the plaintiff is the bond, fide holder of the bill; and it further appears, that the defendants were members of a commercial firm at the date of the bill, and for some short time thereafter. Their signatures are admitted in the pleadings.
Endorsements made by a partnership, on a bill of exchange, bearing date about three weeks before its dissolution, will be presumed to have been made during the continuance of the partnership.
interest will ,10the allowed on damages arising on protest-change1.8 °f ex"
The District Court gave judgment in solido against the defendants for the amount of the bill, and ten per cent, damages thereon, with legal interest on the whole amount, from protest until payment. The defendants appealed.
G. B. Duncan, for the plaintiff.
Preston and Randall, for the defendant and appellants.

Opinion:
Martin, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
The defendants are sued as endorsers of a bill of exchange, and are appellants from a judgment against them.
Their counsel has urged: 1st, That the bill was never presented for acceptance by plaintiff or any subsequent holder; 2d, That it was paid by the drawer; 3d, The defendant, Morton, was not bound by the endorsement. Interest was improperly allowed on the damages.
It appears that the bill was payable seventy days after date. We are ignorant of any law requiring the presentation of such a bill for acceptance: that of a bill payable after sight is required only for obtaining a date, from which the days after sight may be reckoned. Chitty, jr. 39.
There is no evidence of the alleged payment.
Randall, the attorney of the defendants, deposes, that the defendants were partners, and dissolved their partnership about the middle of March, 1837. The bill bears date the 24th of February, 1837; that is to say, about three weeks before the dissolution of the partnership. The period of the endorsement was essentially simultaneous or posterior, and the judge correctly concluded, that the bill was endorsed during the continuance of the partnership.
The court, in our opinion, erred in allowing interest on the damages. For this last reason, it is ordered, adjudged and tit . J ° decreed, that the judgment be annulled, avoided and reversed, as to the defendant, John H. B. Morton ; and it is ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the plaintiff recover from (,jje sajd defendant the sum of ten thousand dollars, with legal interest from the 8th day of May, 1837, until paid; and the farther sum of one thousand dollars .for his damages, with costs in the District Court; and that he pay those of the appeal.