Benedict Hall & Co. v. Davis

• Citation: 41 Ga. 614
• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
• Decision Date: 31 January 1871
• Parties: BENEDICT HALL & COMPANY, plaintiffs in error. v. BENJAMIN F. DAVIS, defendant in error.

41 Ga. 614

BENEDICT HALL & COMPANY, plaintiffs in error. v. BENJAMIN F. DAVIS, defendant in error.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(Atlanta, January Term, 1871.)

Bills. Notice. Before Judge Harrell. Stewart Superior Court. October Term, 1870.

This was complaint by Benedict Hall & Company against Benjamin F. Davis, upon the following draft:

"$139 60 New York, Feb'y 18th, 1868.

"Three days after date, pay to the order of Benedict Hall & Co. one hundred and thirty-nine 60-100 dollars value received, with current rate of exchange on New York, at the office of John King, Columbus, Ga.

"B. F. Davis.

"To J. E. Thompson, Green Hill P. O., Ga."

At the trial, it was admitted that John King's office was not a chartered bank. Plaintiffs' counsel read in evidence said draft and closed. Whereupon, on motion of defendant's counsel, a nonsuit was granted. This is assigned as error.

*E. G. Raiford, by John Peabody, for plaintiffs in error, as to notice to drawer, cited: R. Code, sec. 2739. And said, at any rate, the jury should have passed upon the case: R. Code, sec. 3270; 30th Ga. R., 271.

J. L. Wimberly, by E. H. Beall, for defendant.

LOCHRANE, C. J.

The record in this case discloses that suit was instituted atthe April Term of Stewart Superior Court, upon a bill of exchange, or draft, given by B. F. Davis, defendant in error to the plaintiffs in error. The draft is dated, New York, February 18th, 1868, and was payable at the office of John King, Columbus, Georgia, three days after date, and was addressed to and accepted by, J. E. Thompson. At the October Term, 1870, the case came on for trial, and the plaintiff submitted the draft in evidence, and closed his case. Whereupon, counsel for defendants moved a non-suit, which was granted by the Court, and this is the error assigned.

The question in this case is, whether Davis, the drawer of this paper, was entitled to notice of its non-payment, or whether the plaintiffs were compelled to aver and prove facts dispensing with the notice, under the rules of law, to have made out his case.

Under the 2739th section of our Code, the change made in the law relative to notice, we hold, applies only to indorsers, and does not alter, repeal, or annul the well-established principles of law governing the liability of drawers and their rights to notice of non-payment.

This bill is a foreign bill, being drawn in New York and payable in Georgia, and is invested with all the necessary requirements of presentation and notice of non-payment to charge the drawer, as are applicable to foreign bills of exchange.

Story on Bills lays down the general principle, that, in order to charge a drawer of a...