Dakin v. Graves
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
This is an action of assumpsit on a draft or order, of which the following is a copy: Clinton, Dec. 16, 1861. John Weare, Sir: Please pay to Geo. W. B. Dakin two hundred and fifteen dollars 45-100 in exchange on New York, when Mr. Dakin retires the notes of Dakin & Co., for four thousand dollars, value received.- J. G. GRAVES. Plea, the general issue with a set-ofF. Said draft or order was never accepted by said Weare, but on the 13th of February, 1862, was protested.
Read the full summary
This is an action of assumpsit on a draft or order, of which the following is a copy: Clinton, Dec. 16, 1861. John Weare, Sir: Please pay to Geo. W. B. Dakin two hundred and fifteen dollars 45-100 in exchange on New York, when Mr. Dakin retires the notes of Dakin & Co., for four thousand dollars, value received.- J. G. GRAVES. Plea, the general issue with a set-ofF. Said draft or order was never accepted by said Weare, but on the 13th of February, 1862, was protested. The protest stated that the notary presented "the original draft,” "and demanded payment of the same, which was refused, said…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
I. Without considering the fact that the instrument in suit is payable "in exchange on New York,” (see 1 Parsons on Notes & Bills, 45 — 7,) it is clear that it cannot be regarded as a bill of exchange, for the reason that it is payable on a contingency ; 3 Kent’s Com. 74. But we think it is , an "order” within the meaning of that term in section 3 of chapter 14, Revised Statutes, which enacts that "the protest of any bill of exchange, note, or order, duly certified by any notary public under his hand and official seal, shall be evidence of the facts stated in such protest, and of the notiee…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Collamer v. FosterSupreme Court of Vermont · 1854
- Brown v. AgnewSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843
- Caswell v. CooperIllinois Supreme Court · 1857