Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/141

 Svumm Coors: or Pemjyunisa ag; At the fame time the defendants tranfmitted to each of their r·;gr. correfpondents, feparate fets of bills drawn on Partner, for the VN`-! fumsrefpe6tivelyduetothem,tobe accepted andpaid when Befé E9’Say0': bill was paid. That bili, however,whieh itil! remainsintliehandsofP••r¢u¤·, wasrprotelled for non·ac- éeptaneeandmmpayment; and,ofcou e,theotherbilis,that dependedon it, Ihared the hmetitc. Scb¢nH·n_qQth¤tret¤med the Erik bill ofhis fet and the protell for non-payment to the defendants, deliring them to give him credit for the ameunt, andmmakearemittance onaeeount of the goodsfold; bntthis the defendants refufed, beeaufe they  that BJP Um bill had been hufde purehafed by them, as authorized for S¤&uLb•u_]2 and others; and_tbat thofe interelted in the bill mult fuller the dama refulting from its non-payment, ae- eording to their   Upon this, Slidlblf indorfed and fent the fecond bi ofhis fet, together with a pro- telt for non-acceptance upon the fecond bill,to the plaintii} who, it-was admitted, was the agent of Sclvenlbangk, and that the in- dorfemetrtwasmadenierely for the pnrpofeof bringing this a&ion. Anothera£ionwas,likewife, depending againilt the defendantsinthe nameof Scbmllmjé, to recoverthebalance due on the conlignment account. After a defence on the merits, Ddar, for the defendant, lla- ied, that the prelimt a€tion was not maintainable in point of law; andmovedfor a non-fuit, on this ground, thatthe Erik bill and protell: for non-payment being renamed to the defend- ants, the fecond bill could not afterwards be ncgociated. He contended, that, abfiradled from the queflion by whom the lofs· fhould be home, it was fuEcient to dellroy all remedy on the bill itfelf, that Scbenlbaujé had refufed to accept it in payment; denied credit for the amount; and `exprefsly reformed to tb:. ori- ginal account for the goods. Bdides, it will admit of fome doubt, whether anaélion can be maintained on a protell: for non·acceptanee. Ej}. 47. Llarius 64. 73. 1 IL Blu}. 8g. Ingnfdl and Case replied to the motion for a non·fuit, that no authority could be (hewn to prove that a fecond bill may not be negociated, though the has been delivered up. In this cafe the bill was only fent to the defendants, as it might have been to any other perfon, with a delire that credit might be given for it; but if the credit was not given, the bill ought to have been returned to Sth-»lLvsu_/2; and the drawer's wrongfully withholding it can never be allowed to dellroy its obligation. As to the doubt, whether the aélion is maiutsinable on a protclt for non·aceept·mee, Doug. gg will effcftually remove it; and we do not claim llama cs under the ac} of Alikmbly {1 wl. DalL Lili:. p. 23) but only the principal and ixwsrsfl. ° Br

�