Foden v. Sharp

4 Johns. 183
New York Supreme Court·Decided February 15, 1809·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

Per 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 cent, interest. The residue of the motion must be denied, and the plaintiffs are to pay the costs of the application.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Foden v. Sharp, 4 Johns. 183 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1809).

4 Johns. 183 (Foden v. Sharp) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wood v. Consolidated Electric Light Co.
36 F. 538 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1888)
Kavanaugh v. Day
10 R.I. 393 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1873)
Simpson v. White
40 N.H. 540 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1860)
Montgomery v. Tutt
11 Cal. 307 (California Supreme Court, 1858)
Curtis, Graham & Blatchford v. Leavitt
1 N.Y. 9 (New York Court of Appeals, 1857)
Curtis and Others v. . Leavitt
15 N.Y. 9 (New York Court of Appeals, 1857)
Nichols v. . Pool
47 N.C. 23 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1854)
Green v. Goings
7 Barb. 652 (New York Supreme Court, 1850)
Bacon v. Dyer
12 Me. 19 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1835)
Baldwin v. Farnsworth
10 Me. 414 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1833)
Weed v. Van Houten
9 N.J.L. 190 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1827)
Anonymous
2 Cow. 586 (New York Supreme Court, 1824)