Bussard v. Levering

(Common Law. Bills or Exchange.) Bussard v. Levering. Where the second day of grace falls oh Saturday, it is the lást day of grace; and notice of non-payment'given to the drawer of a billon that- day, 'after a demand upon the acceptor on the samp day, is sufficient to charge the drawer. Noticé,to-the drawer, by putting the Same into the'post-office, where the .persons live in different places, is good. Error to the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia. Assumpsit against the defendant below, (Bossard,) as drawer of an inland bill of exchange drawn at Baltimore on the 3d of October, 1816, upon one Martin Gillet, for 31,244 79 cents, payable six mpnths after date, and accepted by Gillet. Plea, non assumpsit. On the trial of the cause, the plaintiff produced and read in evidence to the jury, the bill, acceptance, and protest; the hand writing of the respective parties being admitted; and gave evidence to prove that alter bank hours, on Saturday, the fifth of April, 1817, being the second day of grace alter 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 non-payment and protest of the bill. And gave evidence, that such protest and notice, on the second day of grace, under those circumstances, was confer-. mabie 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 dishonour of the same; but that the notice given upon the same day that the payment of the draft was demanded, to wit, on Saturday, the oth of 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. Feb. 7th. This cause was argued by Mr. Jones for the plain-tiffin error, and by Mr. Key for the defendant. [MAJORITY] This Court were unanimously of opinion that, by the general law merchant, notice of non-payment given to the drawer oh the last day of grace, after a demand upon thé 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 ¿ffirtned.