Case Name: Long's Administrators v. Moore's Executors
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1807-04
Citations: 2 Brev. 172
Docket Number: 
Parties: Long’s Administrators v. Moore’s Executors.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 172–174

Head Matter:
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
APRIL, 1807.
Long’s Administrators v. Moore’s Executors.
If the drawer of a bill agree with the payee, that in case of non-payment by the drawee, the payee shall wait until a certain day, when the drawer will pay the bill; notice before the day so fixed, need not be given of non-payment by the drawee; and if the drawer dies before the bill is payable, notice to his executors will not be necessary.
In Sumter district, before BkevaRd, J., the case was this : Col. Isham Moore drew an order in favor of Felix Long, in February, 1803, upon John Brailsford, Jr. ef Charleston. Long, who held Moore’s bond, gave a receipt on the bond for the amount of the draft; but it was included in a receipt for a considerable sum of money, which was paid down. When the draft was offered to Long, he objected to receiving it, but took it conditionally, provided it should be punctually paid. Moore agreed to this, and promised to go to Charleston in the next J une, and if Mr. Brailsford would not pay the draft before that time he would then pay the money mentioned therein, himself. Col. Moore died in April, 1803 ; and his executors did not take out letters testamentary, and qualify, until some time in June, 1804. The draft was presented to Brailsford soon after it was drawn, who accepted it verbally. He told Long that he had no funds of Mr. Moore in his hands at that time, but that he would pay the draff in two or three days. After Moore’s death, Long thought it prudent to sue for the recovery, on the ac. ceptance, for non-payment of the bill, and accordingly sued out a writ against Brailsford, in May, 1803, and obtained judgment in June, 1804 ; fi.fa. thereon was sued'out in June, 1804, and a ca. sa. in August, 1804. In February, 1805, Brailsford took the benefit of the act made for the relief of insolvent debtors, and was dis. charged under it.
At the trial, Simons, for the defendants,
contended, that neglect was imputable to the drawee, in omitting to give due notice to the drawer of the bill, immediately upon non-payment thereof; and that after Moore’s death, notice ought to have been given to his personal representatives, or to his family, if his executors bad not qualified, or taken upon them the burthen of the execution of his will.
On the other side, Branding, for the plaintiffs,
argued, and it was so declared by the court, in charging the jury, that as the agreement between the drawer and payee was, that the drawer would pay the bill, if Brailsford did not pay it before June, the drawer was not entitled to notice till June. But, at all events, as Moore had died before notice could have been given to him of nonpayment, for the bill was not payable until about the time of Moore’s death, the drawee was not bound to give notice of the non-payment to any other than his personal representatives, and his executors did not qualify until June, 1804, at which time they were fully apprised of all the steps which had been taken to recover the money from Brailsford,' and that Long’s administrators meant to resort to them.
Verdict for plaintiffs.

Opinion:
Motion for a new trial for misdirection. Abandoned by plaintiffs.
Note. If drawer be dead, the presentment should be to his representatives, The same reason applies to an indorser, if the representatives live at a reasonable distance. Chitty, 71. If there is no executor, then notice at the house 0f the deceased is all that can be given, lb. 131. See 2 Caines, 121.