Case Name: Hirschfelder v. Locey Min. & Manuf'g Co. et al.
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1891-12-17
Citations: 17 N.Y.S. 726
Docket Number: 
Parties: Hirschfelder v. Locey Min. & Manuf’g Co. et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 17
Pages: 726–726

Head Matter:
Hirschfelder v. Locey Min. & Manuf’g Co. et al.
(City Court of New York, General Term.
December 17, 1891.)
Drafts—Non-Payment by Acceptor—Notice to Drawer.
Presentation oí a draft at maturity to the drawer for payment is sufficient notice to him of non-payment by the acceptor.
Appeal from special term.
Action by Sigmund Hirschfelder against the Locey Mining & Manufacturing Company and another. A demurrer to the complaint was overruled, and defendant company appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before Van Wyck, Fitzsimons, and McCarthy, JJ.
5". Aplington, for appellant. 8. A. Emanuel, for respondent.

Opinion:
Fitzsimons, J.
This is an action upon a 30-day draft, dated 5th September, 1891, for $150, drawn by the defendant Locey Mining & Manufacturing Company, to the order of B. G. Oppenheim, and duly accepted by the defendant Locey; that before maturity it was delivered to Oppenheim, and, also before maturity, indorsed and delivered to plaintiff; that it was presented for payment to both defendants on October 8, 1891, and payment refused. The defendant the Locey Mining & Manufacturing Company demurred to the complaint upon the ground "that it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action," which was overruled as frivolous. The demurrer admits all the allegations of the complaint; therefore admits that the draft was presented to both defendants, and payment thereof refused by each of them. The presentation to the demurring defendant of the draft for payment, I think, was sufficient notice to it that the defendant Locey had failed to pay the same. The law only requires that speedy notice of non-payment by the acceptor of a draft shall be given to its drawer, so that his rights may suffer no detriment by unnecessary delay. Such notice, the demurrer admits, was given in this case. I think that the complaint was sufficient, and the demurrer properly overruled. The defendant's plea is purely technical, and should not be encouraged. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.