Church v. Swope
Ohio Supreme Court
Error to tbe District Court of Huron county. The original action was brought by the firm of Swope & Hughes, against "William "W. Bissell, individually, and Charles H. Church, Joshua B. Bissell and William W. Bissell, composing the firm of Church, Bissell & Co., to recover money paid by the plaintiffs as drawees of a bill of exchange, at the request of the defendants.
Read the full summary
Error to tbe District Court of Huron county. The original action was brought by the firm of Swope & Hughes, against "William "W. Bissell, individually, and Charles H. Church, Joshua B. Bissell and William W. Bissell, composing the firm of Church, Bissell & Co., to recover money paid by the plaintiffs as drawees of a bill of exchange, at the request of the defendants. The following is a copy of the bill of' exchange: “ $350.00. No. 1092. Church, Bissell & Co., Produce Dealers. , “New London, O., Dec. 8, 1874. “ Pay to the order of M. H. Smith, cashier, three hundred and fifty dollars, value…
1Opinion of the CourtWhite, J.
We find no error in the court rendering judgment for the plaintiffs.
Where a drawee is without funds of the drawer of a bill of *495exchange, and pays the bill, he is entitled to be reimbursed by the drawer for the money thus paid ; and if there are several drawers, part of whom are sureties for the others, all are alike liable to reimburse the drawee.
The principle is thus stated in Nelson v. Richardson, 4 Sneed, 307: The surety drawer of a bill of exchange becomes chargeable with every obligation and liability which the law imposes upon the principal, as well those that are implied by law as…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Swilley v. LyonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1851
- Dickerson v. TurnerIndiana Supreme Court · 1860