Wright v. . Garlinghouse

The principal question to be considered is, whether the defendant was liable to Messrs. Hicks Hathaway, the drawees, and acceptors of the bill of exchange in this case after they had paid the same at its maturity to the holders. It is not contended by any one that either the principal drawer, L.B. Garlinghouse, or either of the other two persons who signed it, are liable on the bill as a written contract. According to the legal effect of that instrument, the acceptors were the parties primarily liable, and the drawer could never be liable to them — his undertaking being limited to a contract…