Schofield v. Bayard
New York Supreme Court
This was an action of assumpsit,: tried at the New-York circuit in January, 1828, before the Hon. Ogden Edwards, one of the circuit judges. The defendants drew a bill of exchange- in the name of Roy, Bayard & Co., (the name- of their firm,) dated New-York, 15th August, 1825, upon Messrs. Crowder, Clough
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Savage. Ch. J.
Where a bill is accepted supra protest, the holder must demand payment, and if refused, notice of such refusal must be given. Such acceptance is a conditional engagement; and to render such acceptor absolutely liable, the bill must be duly presented for payment to the drawee, and protested in case of refusal. (Chitty on Bills, 242. 16 East, 391.) The above authorities say the payment must be demanded of the drawees; but if the bill is payable at a particular place, payment must be demanded at that place. In this case the only real question is, whether the holder is…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Pier v. HeinrichshoffenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- Tunno & Cox v. LagueNew York Supreme Court · 1800
- Muncy Borough School District v. Commonwealth ex rel. WitterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1877
- Dunbar v. TylerMississippi Supreme Court · 1870
- F. Lane & Co. v. Bank of West TennesseeTennessee Supreme Court · 1872
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.