Forbes v. Eldridge
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Assumpsit to recover the balance of an account. The counts in the declaration were indebitatus assumpsit on the accounts annexed, and the common money counts. The controversy between the parties arose from a charge in that account, of the 2d of May, 1801, of 650Z. sterling, as a remittance to pay a bill of exchange of like amount, drawn by Hicks if Post, of New York, the defendant’s agents, upon the plaintiffs, merchants in Dublin.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit to recover the balance of an account. The counts in the declaration were indebitatus assumpsit on the accounts annexed, and the common money counts. The controversy between the parties arose from a charge in that account, of the 2d of May, 1801, of 650Z. sterling, as a remittance to pay a bill of exchange of like amount, drawn by Hicks if Post, of New York, the defendant’s agents, upon the plaintiffs, merchants in Dublin. On the trial upon the general issue, which was had before the Chief Justice at the last November term in this county, it appeared in evidence, that the defendant…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
To strip the reports of all adventitious circum*438stances, the case may be correctly stated thus: — A merchant in the United States consigns his ship to his correspondent in Ireland, directs him to procure insurance, and draws a bill of exchange on him payable in London; the bill is accepted by the correspondent in the usual course of his business; before it arrives at matu rity, he purchases and remits exchange to reimburse the house in London for their payment of the bill; the bills thus remitted do not fall due in season for the acceptance, and before their maturity the parties…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Mazukiewicz v. Hanover National BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1925
- Carle v. WhiteSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1832