Case Name: H. A. Sharp v. E. A. Ward
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1835-12
Citations: 7 Ohio 223
Docket Number: 
Parties: *H. A. Sharp v. E. A. Ward.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases decided in the supreme court of ohio : upon the circuit at the special sessions in Columbus
Volume: 7
Pages: 225–225

Head Matter:
*H. A. Sharp v. E. A. Ward.
. Days of grace not allowed upon common notes of hand.
This was a writ of error, adjourned for decision here, from the County of Cuyahoga. The object of bringing the case into this court was to settle and publish a rule of mercantile law, respecting days of grace, upon negotiable notes, payable at no particular place. The case was this,
Ward, indorsee, brought suit against Sharp, his indorser, upon a note of hand, payable to an order one year after date, and dated June 12, 1830. Payment was demanded, and notice of non-payment given, on June 13, 1831. The court of common pleas of Cuyahoga county held the demand and notice good, and gave judgment for the plaintiff, to reverse which this writ is brought.

Opinion:
Judge Lane
delivered the opinion of the court:
The single question presented upon this record is, are days of grace allowed, in this state, upon notes like this ? In the absence of legislation, and of decided cases, this depends upon custom, that is, upon the usual mode of transacting the business upon which the controversy arises. In 6 Ohio, 66, this court held that some descriptions of negotiable paper, such as notes payable at banks, are subject to the rules of the general law merchant. Upon such notes, and upon commercial bills of exchange, it is a well-established usage to allow days of grace. In' relation to .mere ordinary notes of hand, made -in the common transactions of life, no such usage is understood to prevail. It is customary to interpret the contract according to its terms, and treat it as requiring performance on the day stipulated. The judgment is in accordance with this usage, and must be affirmed.