Carroll v. Upton
The Superior Court of New York City
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the payee of a bill of exchange, against the drawer. The bill was as follows: “ $295 32. “ Washington City, March 10th, 1845. “ At three days sight, please pay to the order of Mr. Thos. Carroll, the sum of two hundred and ninety-five dollars and thirty-two cents, and charge the same as advised to Clayton Tiffin. And oblige your ob’t. serv’t, “ Francis H. Upton. “ To 1. W. Arthur &f Co., Merchants, New Orleans.”
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the payee of a bill of exchange, against the drawer. The bill was as follows: “ $295 32. “ Washington City, March 10th, 1845. “ At three days sight, please pay to the order of Mr. Thos. Carroll, the sum of two hundred and ninety-five dollars and thirty-two cents, and charge the same as advised to Clayton Tiffin. And oblige your ob’t. serv’t, “ Francis H. Upton. “ To 1. W. Arthur &f Co., Merchants, New Orleans.” The defendant having with his plea, denied the receipt of notice of non-acceptance or of non-payment of the bill, the plaintiff, at the…
1Opinion of the CourtBy the Court. Sandford, J.
The defendant as the drawer of this bill, was entitled to notice of its non-acceptance, unless some cause existed which made it unnecessary for the holder to give him such notice. The plaintiff claimed, that the drawer had no reason to expect that the bill would be accepted or paid, and therefore he was not entitled to notice. This question was submitted to the jury on the testimony ; and it is contended by the defendant, that there was not sufficient testimony against him to warrant the judge in leaving it to the jury.
We have considered the point, and having regard to the circumstance that…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Bank of Utica v. BenderNew York Supreme Court · 1839
- Bank of Utica v. DavidsonNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Reid v. PayneNew York Supreme Court · 1819
3Cited by4 opinions
- Wilson v. SenierWisconsin Supreme Court · 1861
- Amsinck v. RogersAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905
- Brighton Market Bank v. PhilbrickSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1860
- In re BrewsterNew York Surrogate's Court · 1886