Munroe v. Easton

2 Johns. Cas. 75
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1800
StatusPublished

This text of 2 Johns. Cas. 75 (Munroe v. Easton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Munroe v. Easton, 2 Johns. Cas. 75 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1800).

Opinion

Kent, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. I have always understood the law to be well settled, that the drawer of a bill is only responsible after a default on the part of the [76]*76acceptor; and that the holder must first demand payment, or use due diligence to demand it of the acceptor, before he can resort to the drawer. (2 Burr. 674.) Nothing of this kind having been done in the present case, I consider the drawer as discharged. No change in the form of the *action can alter the respective rights of the parties in relation to the bill. This must be considered as a suit by the payee of a bill of exchange against the drawer* and the law is too well settled to admit of a doubt.

If this was to be considered on the ground of an equitable action for money laid out and expended to another's use, and had no reference to the bill, yet the evidence in the case shows that the money was advanced for the use of the acceptor, and not of the drawer. The letter and the account current of the plaintiffs is deeisite proof against them.

The verdict, therefore, ought to be set aside, as against law and evidence;

New trial granted.(

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 Johns. Cas. 75, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/munroe-v-easton-nysupct-1800.