Cribbs v. Adams
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Action of contract upon the following instrument, signed by the defendants: .“ Adams & Co. Express and Banking Office, San Francisco, February 10, 1855. No. 63463. Exchange for ¡§1800. At sight of this first of exchange (second and third unpaid) pay to the order of Harvey H. Cribbs eighteen hundred dollars, value received, and place to account of exchange. Adams & Co. “ To Messrs. Adams & Co. of San Francisco, New Orleans.”
Read the full summary
Action of contract upon the following instrument, signed by the defendants: .“ Adams & Co. Express and Banking Office, San Francisco, February 10, 1855. No. 63463. Exchange for ¡§1800. At sight of this first of exchange (second and third unpaid) pay to the order of Harvey H. Cribbs eighteen hundred dollars, value received, and place to account of exchange. Adams & Co. “ To Messrs. Adams & Co. of San Francisco, New Orleans.” Across the face of the instrument were these words: “ Payable at the office of Benoist, Shaw & Co. N. O.” “ Adams & Co. per R. Hereford.” There was evidence tending to…
1Opinion of the CourtBigelow, J.
It is quite immaterial to the decision of this case, whether the contract declared on is regarded as a promissory note or a bill of exchange. In either case, being a foreign bill or note, and payable at sight, it was by the law merchant entitled to grace. Story on Notes, §§ 29, 224, 225 a. Chit. Bills, (10th Amer. ed.) 273, 365. If by the usage or law of the place where the contract was to be performed no grace was allowed, it was incumbent on the defendants to show it, as otherwise the rule of the general law merchant, as prevailing throughout the United States, must govern. Wood v. Corl, 4…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bardstown & Louisville Railroad v. MetcalfeCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1862
- Kirtland v. WanzerThe Superior Court of New York City · 1853