Taylor, Shelby & Co. v. Williams
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 4. APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT. Pet Eq. 1. The general rule is that the holder of a bill of exchange is not bound to give notice of protest where the drawer had no funds in the hands of the drawee. (1 Wheaton's Sclwyn, 332.) There are exceptions, as where the drawer has reasonable expectations of having funds in the hands of the drawee ; as where shipments have been made to him.
Read the full summary
Case 4. APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT. Pet Eq. 1. The general rule is that the holder of a bill of exchange is not bound to give notice of protest where the drawer had no funds in the hands of the drawee. (1 Wheaton's Sclwyn, 332.) There are exceptions, as where the drawer has reasonable expectations of having funds in the hands of the drawee ; as where shipments have been made to him. (Story on Bills, 367, note 2; Holcomb's Leading Cases, 332; 2 Marshall, 152.) 2. Is the drawer individually liable, or is the corporation ? There is no intimation on the face of the bill that the drawer is to be…
1Opinion of the Court
Judge Simpson
delivered the opinion of the court:
This action was brought against George W. Williams as drawer, on an order drawn as follows, viz:
“$320. Feb. 12th, 1855.
“Thos. B. Posey, Tr. Grand Division of Kentucky, ‘ pay to the order of A. WT. Elder three hundred and *493‘ twenty dollars, in full of copies of Ky. New Era or- ‘ dered to be sent General D. G. W. Patriarchs at Jan. ‘ session of G. Division.
‘ GEO. W. WILLIAMS, G. W. P.
‘Attest: L. IIord, G. S.”
The defendant, in his answer, alledged that he drew the order sued on as the presiding officer of the grand division of the sons of temperance…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Mechanics' Bank v. Bank of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1820
- Lazarus v. ShearerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1841
- Many v. Beekman Iron Co.New York Court of Chancery · 1841
3Cited by1 opinion
- Potter v. ChaneyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1956