¶1When this case was before us in the court below, we considered the law very well settled by a long current of authorities and by uniform practice, that assumpsit for money had and received would lie by the holder of a bill of exchange against the acceptor, that there was direct privity of contract between them; and that the bill and its acceptance was a transfer to the holder of so much money of the drawer in the acceptor's hands.
¶2If authorities are necessary they will be found in our court of errors, in Henschel v. Mahler,3 Denio, 430; in the U.S. Supreme Court in Raborg v. Payton, 23 Wheat. 386; in the English courts, in Tatlock v. Harris, 3 T.R. 174, c. c.
¶3Indeed we considered the question so well settled that we could not look upon the defence as any thing but vexatious and interposed merely for delay, and we therefore gave double costs.
¶4The judgment ought to be affirmed.
¶5Was of opinion that the bill might be given in evidence under the money counts without the aid of the statutes on this subject, upon the authority of Henschel v. Mahler,3 Denio, 428, 430 and of Hays v. Phelps, 1 Sandf. S.C. Rep. 67, and the authorities cited in these cases
¶6GARDINER, JEWETT, WELLES and WATSON, concurred in the conclusion that the judgment should be affirmed.
¶7GRIDLEY, J., was absent.