Piatt v. Eads
Indiana Supreme Court
ERROR, to the Franklin Circuit Court. — -This was an action of assumpsit by the payees of a bill of exchange against the drawer, in consequence of the non-payment of the drawee. Thé declaration showed, that the bill in question had not been presented to the drawee for payment, until the day after the third day of grace. General demurrer to the declaration, and judgment for the defendant.
1Opinion of the CourtScott, J.
Four points are presented for our consideration. 1st, Whether the lex mercatoria is a part of the common law of England; 2dly, Whether foreign and inland bills of exchange are governed by that law; 3dly, Whether that law is in force in this state; and 4thly, Whether the bill in this case was presented for payment in time to charge the drawer. The three first points need not be discussed separately. The whole current of' authorities, from the commencement of the history of our system ofjurisprudence down to the present day, goes to establish the doctrine, that the custom of merchants is and…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Renner v. Bank of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Mills v. Bank of United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1826
- Lenox v. RobertsSupreme Court of the United States · 1817
- Bussard v. LeveringSupreme Court of the United States · 1821
- Farnum v. FowleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1815
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- City of Aurora v. WestIndiana Supreme Court · 1864
- Midland Steel Co. v. Citizens National BankIndiana Court of Appeals · 1904
- Patterson v. CarrellIndiana Supreme Court · 1877
- Hoffman v. HollingsworthIndiana Court of Appeals · 1894
- Fisher v. State BankIndiana Supreme Court · 1846