Hart v. Smith
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the County Court of Lowndes. Before the Hon. Edward H. Cook, Judge. The facts of this case are fully shown in the opinion of the court. 1. Bills payable at sight, being different from those payable on demand, (9th ed. Chit. 410,) should be presented for acceptance within a reasonable time, and before payment thereof be demanded.
Read the full summary
Error to the County Court of Lowndes. Before the Hon. Edward H. Cook, Judge. The facts of this case are fully shown in the opinion of the court. 1. Bills payable at sight, being different from those payable on demand, (9th ed. Chit. 410,) should be presented for acceptance within a reasonable time, and before payment thereof be demanded. Chitty on Bills, 10th ed. 274; Fernandez v. Lewis, 1 McCord, 322. For, (sight meaning acceptance,) bills payable at, or after sight, do not become due until after they are accepted, or protested for non-acceptance. Brown v. Turner, 11 Ala. 752; Chitty on…
1Opinion of the CourtDargan, J.
This was an action of assumpsit, on a bill of exchange, drawn by the defendant, in favor of the plaintiff, on Desha & Smith, dated the 26th February, 1846, payable at sight. The only evidence introduced to charge the drawer, was the bill, and protest, showing a demand of payment made of the drawees, on the 4th of March, 1846, and notice to the drawer. The court charged the jury, that the plaintiff could not recover.
A bill, payable on demand, or at any fixed time, need not be presented for acceptance, but a demand of payment, at the time the holder has the legal right to demand payment, is all…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- PRESIDENT AND DIRECTORS OF THE BANK OF WASHINGTON v. Triplett & NealeSupreme Court of the United States · 1828
- Calhoun v. LunsfordSupreme Court of Alabama · 1837
3Cited by2 opinions
- Knott v. VenableSupreme Court of Alabama · 1868
- Clark v. O'NealSupreme Court of Alabama · 1935