US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for

BUSSARD V. LEVERING, 19 U. S. 102 (1821)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 19 U. S. 102 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Bussard v. Levering, 19 U.S. 6 Wheat. 102 102 (1821)

Bussard v. Levering

19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 102




Where the second day of grace falls on Saturday, it is the last day of grace, and notice of nonpayment given to the drawer of a bill on that day, after a demand upon the acceptor on the same day, is sufficient to charge the drawer.

Notice to the drawer, by putting the same into the post office, where the persons live in different places, is good.

Assumpsit against the defendant below (Bossard) as drawer of an inland bill of exchange drawn at Baltimore on 3 October, 1816, upon one Martin Gillet, for $1,244.79, payable six months after date and accepted by Gillet. Plea, nonassumpsit. On the trial of the cause, the plaintiff produced and read in evidence to the jury the bill, acceptance, and protest, the handwriting of the respective parties being admitted, and gave evidence to prove that after bank hours, on Saturday, 5 April, 1817, being the second day of grace after the said bill became due, the same was presented by a notary to the acceptor for payment, and not being paid, was duly protested. And on the same day written notice was sent by the mail to the defendant, residing at Georgetown, D.C., notifying him of the nonpayment and protest of the bill. And gave evidence that such protest and notice, on the second day of grace, under those circumstances, was conformable chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 19 U. S. 103

to the general usage in Baltimore. And no other evidence of demand or notice was offered. Whereupon the counsel for the defendant prayed the opinion and instruction of the court to the jury that the defendant, under the circumstances so given in evidence, was not liable in this action, the drawer of the said bill not having received due notice of the dishonor of the same, but that the notice given upon the same day that the payment of the draft was demanded, to-wit, on Saturday, 5 April, 1817, was not regular and sufficient to charge the defendant in this action. Which instruction the court refused, and the defendant's counsel excepted. A verdict and judgment thereon was rendered for the plaintiff, and the cause was brought by writ of error to this Court.

This Court was unanimously of opinion that, by the general law merchant, notice of nonpayment given to the drawer on the last day of grace, after a demand upon the acceptor on the same day (and Saturday, in this case, was the last day of grace, the next day being Sunday) was sufficient to charge the drawer, and that the notice in this case given to the drawer, by putting the same into the post office, was good.

Judgment affirmed.

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™