Clayton Town-Site Co. v. Clayton Drug Co.
| Decision Date | 22 March 1915 |
| Docket Number | 1718. |
| Citation | 147 P. 460,20 N.M. 185,1915 -NMSC- 025 |
| Parties | CLAYTON TOWN-SITE CO. v. CLAYTON DRUG CO. ET AL. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
A bill of exchange is an unconditional order in writing addressed by one person to another, signed by the person giving it requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay on demand or a fixed or determinable future time a sum certain in money to order or to bearer.
Where a statute requires the acceptance of a bill of exchange to be in writing and signed by the drawee, an oral acceptance is not binding upon the drawee.
The effect of the acceptance of the order is to constitute the acceptor the principal debtor. By the act of acceptance he assumes to pay the order or bill, and becomes the principal debtor for the amount specified; the acceptance being an admission of everything essential to the existence of such liability.
Appeal from District Court, Union County; T. D. Leib, Judge.
Action by the Clayton Town-Site Company against the Clayton Drug Company and another. From judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed.
O. T Toombs, of Clayton, for appellants.
Joseph Gill, of Clayton, for appellee.
HANNA J. (after stating the facts as above).
The only assignment of error necessary for the consideration of this court is as to the sufficiency of the acceptance of the order on Bushnell Bros. & Co. given by J. C. Slack, which question was raised by several assignments of error going to the admission of the order as evidence, and to the admission of evidence to show that Bushnell Bros. accepted the bill of exchange, and going to the evidence that Hayden accepted the order or bill of exchange, and in other respects not necessary to point out for the purpose of this opinion.
It was seriously contended by appellants that there was no evidence whatever to show that Bushnell Bros. had any connection whatever with the Clayton Drug Company, or with Rose M Bushnell, but we do not attach any importance to this contention in view of the record. The entire case seems to turn upon and be disposed of by a consideration of the question of the sufficiency of the acceptance of the bill of exchange or order given by J. C. Slack in favor of the Clayton Town-Site Company. This order is in the following words and figures, to wit:
As defined by section 126, c. 83, Laws 1907, a bill of exchange is an unconditional order in writing addressed by one person to another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay on demand or a fixed or determinable future time a sum certain in money to order or to bearer.
There can be no question, therefore, that the order given by Dr Slack, was in all senses a bill of exchange, and, under section 127 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, did not operate as an assignment of the funds in the hands of the drawee...
To continue reading
Request your trial