Case Name: Frederick W. Walker v. Charles Stetson
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1869-12
Citations: 19 Ohio St. 400
Docket Number: 
Parties: Frederick W. Walker v. Charles Stetson.
Judges: Bbinkerhoff, C.J., and Scott, Welch, and Day, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 19
Pages: 400–405

Head Matter:
Frederick W. Walker v. Charles Stetson.
1. The holder of a bill of exchange payable on a day certain is not bound to present the same for acceptance to the drawee; and a presentment for payment at the time and place at which it is made payable is a sufficient presentment to charge the drawer and indorsers.
2. W. drew a bill of exchange at Cleveland, Ohio, addressed to G-. at his place of business in the city of New York, and payable on a day certan at the Ocean Bank in the last-named city. At maturity the bill was presented at the bank for payment, and duly protested for non-payment. The drawee was in funds at the maturity of the bill, and would have paid it had he been advised of its existence, but he subsequently became insolvent. Held: That it was the duty of the drawer to have given the drawee the requisite advice, and that the presentment was sufficient to charge the antecedent parties to the bill
Error to the district court of Cuyahoga county.
The ease is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
Prentiss c& Baldwin for plaintiff in error:
1. The first point we make for plaintiff in error is, that the bill was never presented to the drawee, or at his place of business or residence; and this being of course indispensable to make the drawee liable, and not having been done, the holders of the bill could not make Stetson liable as indorser, nor Walker as drawer or indorser. And if it was presented for acceptance and acceptance refused, we never had notice of that, nor Stetson; and so both were discharged.
2. Stetson, granting he was an accommodation indorser, could not pay the bill to Mygatt & Brown voluntarily anc negligently, this laches existing, and charge the amount paid to the drawer, Walker.
3. The circumstances of the transaction involved in this case are such, as disclosed by the evidence, that all the ordinary rules apply which are applicable to a bill of exchange, and in any view of the facts this is the case as between Mygatt & Brown and Stetson.
Story on Bills, secs. 48, 107, 123, 227, 229, 231, 235, 237, 244, 250, 273, 301, 306, 321, 322, 353, 354, 355, 358, 363, 366, 371, 373, 375, 377, 390, 423; 1 Smith’s Lead. Cas. 27, 272; Davies v. Humphries, 6 M. & W. 168; Russell v. Faylor, 1 Ohio St. 329; Chitty on Bills, pp. 305, 307 (8th ed.); 3 Kent’s Com. 82, 87; Orr v. Maginnis, 7 East, 359; Mitchell v. Bearing, 10 Barn. & Cress. 4; Orr v. Lacy, 4 McLean, 248; Bank of Alexandria v. Wilson, 2 Cranch. 5; Plato v. Reynolds, 27 N. Y. 586; Edwards on Bills, 387; Allen v. Suydam, 20 Wend. 321; S. C., 17 ib. 368; Williams v. Germain, 7 Barn. & Cress. 468; Hoare v. Cazenove, 16 East, 391; Baring v. Clark, 19 Pick. 220; Story Confl. Laws, sec. 360; Townsend's Adm'r v. Lorain Bank, 2 Ohio St. 345; Ward v. Wick, 17 Ohio St. 163.
The verdict was against the evidence,
S. O. Griswold for defendant in error:
We claim that commercial usage or custom does not require of the holder of a time bill to present it for acceptance before maturity in order to charge prior parties. He may wait un til maturity, and- then present the bill for payment. 1 Parsons on Bills, p. 337; Chitty on Bills, chap. vii. sec. 1, p. 298; 3 Kent, 82; Edwards on Bills, sec. 387; Byles on Bills (Sharswood's ed.), sec. 173, p. 289; Story on Bills, sec. 228; Bank of Washington v. Triplet, 1 Peters, 25; O'Keefe v. Dunn et al., 6 Taunton, 305; S. C. Maule & Selwyn, 282; Plato v. Reynolds, 27 N. Y. 586.
If any question of commercial duty in regard to bills can be considered as settled, it seems to us it is that the presentment for payment of a time bill at maturity of the paper is ‘ all that is required' of the holder.
As the other points of the plaintiff in error depend on the resolution of this one in his favor, it seems to us unnecessary to discuss them.

Opinion:
White, J.
Stetson sued Walker in the court of common pleas of Cuyahoga county, in January, 1857, on two bills of exchange-, which Stetson alleged he had been compelled to pay, and take up as the accommodation indorser of Walker.
The case was taken to the district court by appeal.
The bills were both drawn at Cleveland, in this State, by Walker, payable to his own order, at the Ocean Bank in the city of New York, three months after their respective dates, .and were addressed "To John T. Gfleason, Esqr., No. 115 Chambers Street, New York."
The bills were indorsed by Walker and by Stetson, and 'discounted by Mygatt & Brown, as Stetson alleged, for the 'Sole benefit of Walker.
The bills as they respectively matured, were presented at rthe Ocean Bank and payment demanded, which was refused; -but neither of them was presented to the drawee for acceptance, nor was he notified by the holders, Mygatt & Brown, or otherwise, of the existence of the bills, or of their present•ment at the bank for payment. The bills were duly protested for non-payment.
On the trial in the district court, Walker, the defendant, asked the court to instruct the jury, " that to entitle Stetson to recover, the jury must find that the bills of exchange were presented either personally, or at 115 Chambers Street, to Mr. Gleason, the drawee, for acceptance; and that presentment of them at the Ocean Bank for payment on the day of their maturity, would not be, in law, a sufficient presentment for acceptance."
This instruction was refused, and in respect to it the court charged, " that- a presentment for acceptance to the drawee personally, or at 115 Chambers Street, was not necessary; but that a presentment at the bank where said bills were payable, at the proper time, for payment, would be a sufficient presentment of the bills."
Numerous 'other charges were asked, some of which, with or without qualifications, were given to the jury, and others refused; but as their materiality, as respects the case made in the record, depends upon the assumed error of the court in its charge and refusal to charge as above stated, it is not necessary to set them out.
A verdict having been rendered for the plaintiff below, the refusal of the court to grant a new trial on the ground that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence, is likewise assigned for error; and the present petition in error is filed by Walker,'the defendant below, to obtain the reversal of the judgment rendered on the verdict.
The material question in the case is, whether, in the absence of an acceptance, the presentation of the bills at the Ocean Bank for payment was a sufficient presentment of the bills to charge the drawer and the indorser. .
In our opinion it was. The theory of a bill of exchange is, that it is drawn on funds to be provided by the drawer. From this it would seem to follow, that, where the drawer, in the bill appoints a time and place of payment, it is his duty to see that funds are provided at the appointed time and place to pay it. And, if this is so, the duty of the holder in respect to demanding payment would seem to be performed by a presentment in due time, at the designated place.'
It is not denied that this would be true in the case of an accepted bill; but it is contended that the holder is bound to make presentment to the drawee for acceptance, and that his failure to do so discharges the antecedent parties.
We do not so understand the law. It is true that where a bill is made payable within a specified time after sight, it is necessary, in order to fix the period when it is to be paid, to present it to the drawee for acceptance, otherwise the time of payment would never arrive; but when it is payable at a specified date or at a certain period after date, no presentment for acceptance is necessary. Byles on Bills, side pp. 139, 168; Story on Bills, sec. 228; Bank of Washington v. Triplett, 1 Peters' S. C. R. 25; Townsley v. Sumrall, 2 ib. 170.
And in O'Keefe v. Dunn (6 Taunton, 308), Dallas, J., in speaking of the nature of the contract arising from the drawing of a bill payable at a future specified date, says, " He [the drawer] does not stipulate for himself that it shall be presented for acceptance, nor does the law impose such an obligation on the payee. The drawer, therefore, must be considered as contented to rest in ignorance, whether it has been accepted or not, till the bill becomes due. And whether presented or not, depends upon the casualty of how the holder of the bill may choose to proceed."
The strong probability from the evidence is, that the nonpayment of the bills resulted from the fact that the drawee was not advised of the drawing of the bills. He states that he was in funds, and would have paid them had he been so advised.
The question is, whose duty was it to have given him this advice. It seems to us it was the duty of the drawer, for whom the drawee was expected to act in making the payment.
The words " No. 115 Chambers Street," added to the name of the drawee, we regard as descriptio persones. They imposed no additional obligation on the holder in respect to requiring presentment of the bills for acceptance, from what would have existed had the words been omitted. They were merely intended to direct the holder, if he desired to have the bills accepted, where to seek the drawee.
As to the assignment of error that the verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence, it is enough to say, we find no grounds which would justify a reversal of the judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
Bbinkerhoff, C.J., and Scott, Welch, and Day, JJ., concurred.