Carle v. White
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
This action was assumpsit, on an order for fifteen hundred feet of boards, drawn by the defendant, on one Estes, in favor of the plaintiff, and not accepted. At the trial in the court below, to excuse the want of notice to the defendant of the dishonor of the draft, the plaintiff offered to prove the declarations of Estes, made at the time when it was presented to him for acceptance, that he had no funds of the defendant’s in his hands.
Read the full summary
This action was assumpsit, on an order for fifteen hundred feet of boards, drawn by the defendant, on one Estes, in favor of the plaintiff, and not accepted. At the trial in the court below, to excuse the want of notice to the defendant of the dishonor of the draft, the plaintiff offered to prove the declarations of Estes, made at the time when it was presented to him for acceptance, that he had no funds of the defendant’s in his hands. To the admission of this evidence the defendant objected ; and it was rejected and the plaintiff nonsuited by Whitman, C. J. before whom the cause was tried.…
1Opinion of the Court
Parris J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
*105It is an implied condition in every bill, whether inland or foreign* that until it has been presented to the drawee for acceptance or payment, and notice of refusal been given to the drawer, he is not to be charged. The legal presumption is that the drawer has funds in the hands of the drawee. The holder, by taking the bill, virtually engages to present it and withdraw the funds, and, in case it be dishonored, to give timely notice to the drawer that be may take measures necessary for his own security.
Until the case of Bickerdike v. Bollman, 1. T.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Forbes v. EldridgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
3Cited by1 opinion
- Mazukiewicz v. Hanover National BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1925