Philips v. M'Curdy
General Court of Virginia
Assumpsit upon a foreign bill of exchange, with a count for goods, wares, &c. sold and delivered, and another on an insimul compuiasset. General issue pleaded.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit upon a foreign bill of exchange, with a count for goods, wares, &c. sold and delivered, and another on an insimul compuiasset. General issue pleaded. The plaintiffs, at the trial, read in evidence a bill of exchange dated Virginia, 31st of May 1797, and drawn by Alexander Macanley on Caspar Voght, Ham-burgh, for ¿^300 sterling, and payable sixty days after sight to Hugh M‘Curdy, the defendant, or order, which bill was endorsed by the defendant, payable to Philips, Oates, & Co. the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs proved to the jury, that-the defendant endorsed the said bill with his own…
1Opinion of the Court
Chase, Ch. J.(a). Notice of the nonacceptanco of a foreign bill of exchange must be given to the en-tlorsor in due and convenient time, of which the court are to judge. It is a question of law arising from the particular facts. An endorsor is under no obligation to pay a bill of exchange where he has not had notice of its nonacceptance in due and convenient time, and his promise to pay the bill is not binding upon him.
The Court are of opinion, and so direct the jury, that the defendant is not responsible to the plaintiffs, owing to their laches in not giving him reasonable notice of the bill…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Whiteford v. BurckmyerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1843
- Keil v. WestSupreme Court of Florida · 1885
- Bell v. Hagerstown BankCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1848