Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/199

 'Surncmt Couar or Pmiyj-Iwnia. `i`§3 """` ` ‘27t. 3. 4. Bj}. 54. 55. 2 IW/r. gg;. 1 Dall. Rep. 234. I193  270. 252. Irv`! E For the plaintm Morgan urged, that the lofs had not hap· Q pened from the negligence of the plaintiff ; that the fund on l which the bill had been drawn was virtually paid to the defen- l dant himfelf, lince it was paid to his authori ed attomey ; that, therefore, the cafe lhould be conlidered as if no elieéls had been in the handsof the drawee, when no protell, or notice, is ne- cclfary; Efp. gx. and thatno particular. form of notice ought tobe enforced, if it appears, as it does appear, that the de- " fendant had an early knowledge of the far}. - Br ras Coussr :·-The fole quellion is; whether the de- ‘ fendant is bound to pay the bill, under the circumilcances of ‘. this particular cafe ? It was drawn in Stptcmlver 1781 ; it was. · prefentul, and refnfed acceptance, in November 1781 ; and- · yet it was never proteded till Augagf, 1782. This is, in our opinion, a fatal delay. The protell: and notice are required upon principles of convenience; ind it is not ueeeifary that there ihould appear to be an aélual lofs, in confcquence of neg— leéling them. Though what {hall conititute a reafonable time for giving notice is a matter to he left to the Jury, under the peculiar titnntion of our country; yet the rule is a general one, that reafonable notice of proteiling a bill {hall be given to the drawer. We think the rule has been grofsly violated in the pre- feut cafe; and, of courfe, that there ought to be averdift for the defendant. · VERDICT for the defendant} Knox d ah sm:/`u.r JONES.}- HIS was an a&ion on the cafe for goods fold and deliver- Y ` ed; and the only queftion agitated upon the trial, was #’ ' ‘ whetherthe plaintiff was entitled _ to recover intereft? It was. proved, that at the time of the fale, the defendant was inform. ed, that it was the courfe of the trade to give fu: months credit ; or, if calh was paid, to difcount five per cent; but that punc·. tuality, and not interell, was the ohjeét of the plaintiffs. _ Br THE COURT:-'l.`l`lC ellablifhed courfe of the plaintiff? trade is proved 5 and, alfo, the knowledge of the defendant. B `la It ’ Decided at N1 .P. Delaware County, nth Oct06er, I7‘2, be- fore Yn·rt·;s and Bnanronn, jurtkes. _ · ·l· This cafe was Uecitlt-tl at Pl·iIr:de.Qbb4'a, Msi I'rn.·.r, held in Namimr, nga, beiore tb: Cntrr jusrtcs, Snrrrex and Blun- NRD, [7:1:55:::. `

�