Woodruff v. Merchant's Bank
New York Supreme Court
This was an action on the case, tried at the Niagara circuit in October, 1839, before the Hon. Nathan Dayton, one of the circuit judges. The suit was brought for the omission of the notary of the bank in not duly presenting for payment and protesting a bill of exchange sent to the bank for collection, whereby the plaintiff lost his remedy upon the bill against the drawer, acceptor and endorser.
Read the full summary
This was an action on the case, tried at the Niagara circuit in October, 1839, before the Hon. Nathan Dayton, one of the circuit judges. The suit was brought for the omission of the notary of the bank in not duly presenting for payment and protesting a bill of exchange sent to the bank for collection, whereby the plaintiff lost his remedy upon the bill against the drawer, acceptor and endorser. The bill is in these words:— |1500. Detroit, Nov. 15, 1838. [ *674 ] Sixty days after date, pay to the order of Daniel Green, Esq. fifteen hundred dollars at the Phoenix Bank in the city of Hew-York,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Nelson, C. J.
Whether the instrument in question is to be regarded as drawn upon the Oakland County Bank, or upon [ *675 ] *Wm. H. Griswold individually, it is quite clear the witnesses testifying to the commercial usage respecting such paper in the *515city of New-York, misapprehended its established character. They must have assumed it to be in effect, if not in form, a bank check or draft, and applied to it the usage in respect to that class of paper; instead of which it contains every distinguished characteristic of an ordinary bill of exchange. Chitty on Bills, 50 a; Chitty, Jr. 3. .…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Fowler v. PayneMississippi Supreme Court · 1873
- Pomeroy v. TylerCity of New York Municipal Court · 1887
- Whitbeck v. SkinnerNew York Supreme Court · 1844