Legal Opinion

Foden v. Sharp

New York Supreme Court

Decided February 15, 1809PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Per curiam

The holder of a bill of exchange need not show a demand of payment of the acceptor, any more than of the maker of a note. It is the business of the acceptor to show, that he was ready, at the day and place appointed, but that no one came to receive the money, and that he was always ready, afterwards, to pay. In Smith v. Delafontaine, (Bayley 78. note a.) it was so decided. The bill having been drawn in England, and made payable there, the plaintiffs were entitled to S per cent, interest only. A sum must, therefore, be deducted from the verdict, equal to the difference between S and 7 per…

2Cited by13 opinions

  1. Curtis and Others v. . LeavittNew York Court of Appeals · 1857
  2. Montgomery v. TuttCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
  3. President & Directors of the Bank of Commerce v. Rutland & Washington RailroadNew York Supreme Court · 1854
  4. Green v. GoingsNew York Supreme Court · 1850
  5. Nichols v. . PoolSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1854

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API