Benton v. . Martin
New York Court of Appeals
This action was brought, in the Supreme Court, on a draft or bill of exchange drawn by the defendant for value received by him of the plaintiff, on Messrs. Griggs & Lathrop, of Mew York, for $2,026.83, payable to the order of the plaintiff at sight. The complaint set forth a presentment and a protest for non-payment, and notice to the defendant.
Read the full summary
This action was brought, in the Supreme Court, on a draft or bill of exchange drawn by the defendant for value received by him of the plaintiff, on Messrs. Griggs & Lathrop, of Mew York, for $2,026.83, payable to the order of the plaintiff at sight. The complaint set forth a presentment and a protest for non-payment, and notice to the defendant. The bill was dated the 10th July, 1857, but was actually drawn and delivered to an agent of the payee on the 10th day of August, in that year, at the defendant’s place of business, at Clean, Cattaraugus county. There was written across the face of the…
1Opinion of the Court
Denio, Ch. J.
Assuming the paper upon which the action is brought to be operative as an independent bill, it was presented with legal diligence, and the defendant was duly charged. The omission to forward it on the very day it was received, if that had been essential, was excused by the necessity of procuring the indorsement of the plaintiff, which the defendant knew, when he drew the draft, was requisite to be done. The defendant moreover knew, when he drew it, that it was drawn for the purpose of being remitted to Hartford, and he caünot complain of the delay which that would occasion.…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Benton v. . MartinNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Burkhalter v. . the Second Nat. BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Aebi v. Bank of EvansvilleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1905
- Edwards v. City Nat. Bank of McAlesterSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1921
- Benton v. MartinNew York Court of Appeals · 1873