Case Name: CRAWFORD v. CULLY
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1833-09
Citations: 1 Ohio Ch. 453
Docket Number: 
Parties: CRAWFORD v. CULLY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases at law and in chancery Ohio
Volume: 1
Pages: 453–454

Head Matter:
CRAWFORD v. CULLY.
Bill of exchange — order by client for money collected — notice.
An order by a client upon his attorney to pay money out of any collected by him, is not a bill of exchange.
The party receiving money in advance upon such an order, is liable for the advance, if he have no notice of the refusal to pay, bj7 the attorney.
Assumpsit on the money counts. Plea non assumpsit. An order drawn by the defendant in Ohio, on an attorney at law in Virginia, - with whom he had left some demands to collect, to pay the plaintiff $160, out of the moneys collected by him, was read to the jury, and evidence given to show that the plaintiff advanced the defendant $150 on the order, and that the attorney had before paid to the defendant more than he had collected.
Searle, for the defendant,
asked the court to instruct the jury, that to entitle the plaintiff to recover, he must prove a demand of the drawee, and that notice to the defendant was placed in the post-office, within three days thereafter. He cited Ch. on Bills, 48.
H. Stanberry, contra,
cited Ch. on Bills, 43, 192.

Opinion:
Wood, J.
The paper offered is not a bill of exchange, or subject to the law merchant governing bills. It is a mere order by a client upon his attorney to pay over money which he had collected; an order on a contingent fund. The attorney had no money to pay over. The plaintiff being so advised, sues for the money he advanced on the order, and the party receiving the money, seeks to excuse himself from paying, because he has had no notice that his own attorney did not pay, because he had no funds. We think the notice unnecessary in a case like this.
Verdict for the plaintiff.
W. Stanberry
moved for a new trial, because the court erred in instructing the jury, the notice was unnecessary.
Wood, J.
The order offered in evidence was upon a contingent fund. Its legal effect is the same as if it were to pay $160 to Crawford, if you have collected that much for me. Such an order would not be a bill of exchange. Ch. on Bills, 56,7; 1 Bibb, 502. The drawee of such an order could not claim to be exonerated, because he had not notice in time. . The motion is overruled.