¶1The 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 cent, interest. The residue of the motion must be denied, and the plaintiffs are to pay the costs of the application.
4 Johns. 183
Foden v. Sharp
Decided February 15, 1809
New York Supreme Court · decided 1809-02-15
<p>Where a bill of exchange is drawn in E7zglan(l,andpayablc thcre,the holder can recover oniy 5 per cent. intc~ rest. The acce~tor of a bill oI exchange, in a suit against him, cannot object to a protest for non-payment, that it does not state that a demand wa'~ made on him personally; it is sufficient, if it be stated, that payment was demanded at the house or place where the bill was accepted, to be paid.</p> <p>A motion to set aside a verdict for irregularity, and also on the merits, is an enumerated motion.</p>
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1809-02-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently November 1888
8 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →