Hill v. Varrell
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Assumpsit by the indorsee against the drawer of a bill of exchange, of the following tenor ; — “Mew-Orleans, May 22, 1822. u In .Boston, sixty days after sight of this first of exchange, (sec- ££ ond, third, and fourth unpaid,) pay to William G. Enees, or “ order, five hundred and thirty eight dollars and seventy one ££ cents, value received, and charge the same to account of brig ££ Susan, with or without further advice, from your obedient ££ servant, JohnFarrell.”
Read the full summary
Assumpsit by the indorsee against the drawer of a bill of exchange, of the following tenor ; — “Mew-Orleans, May 22, 1822. u In .Boston, sixty days after sight of this first of exchange, (sec- ££ ond, third, and fourth unpaid,) pay to William G. Enees, or “ order, five hundred and thirty eight dollars and seventy one ££ cents, value received, and charge the same to account of brig ££ Susan, with or without further advice, from your obedient ££ servant, JohnFarrell.” It was directed “to Jonathan S. Barrett, Esq. York, Maine,” — and was accepted at ££ York, June 24, 1822,” by a writing on the…
1Opinion of the CourtMellen, C. J.
The only question which has been raised by the parties in this cause is, whether sufficient notice has been given to the drawer of the non-payment of the bill ; or due and reasonable" diligence used to give it. The declaration states that notice of the nonpayment was duly given to the drawer. When such is the averment in the declaration, legal notice must be proved ; and the proof of due and reasonable diligence, when ineffectual to give such notice, will not support such averment; on the contrary, the plaintiff should aver that he had used such diligence, but had been unable to give notice…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Freeman v. BoyntonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1811
- Blakely v. GrantMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
- Chapman v. Lipscombe & PowelNew York Supreme Court · 1806
- Fisher v. EvansSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1813