Holmes v. Mckenzie
| Decision Date | 30 June 1866 |
| Citation | 34 Ga. 558 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | C. D. Holmes, Administrator of Josiah Vinson, deceased, plaintiff in error. vs. Pratt & McKenzie, defendants in error. |
Assumpsit. In Calhoun Superior Court. Tried before Judge Allen. May Term, 1860.
This was an action by Pratt & McKenzie against Vinson, on three drafts, or bills of exchange, drawn by the latter in Calhoun county, Georgia, dated June 14th, 1854, payable December 25th thereafter, to his own order, at the office of the former, in Appalachicola, Florida, addressed to, andaccepted by one A. Marshall, Fort Gaines, Georgia, and endorsed by Vinson, the drawer and payee, to Pratt & McKenzie, the plaintiffs below.
The bills were protested for non-payment, by a notary public of Florida. The protests were under seal, and they were introduced in evidence, with certificates of the notary annexed to them, not under seal, certifying that due notice of non-payment was given to Vinson, the drawer and indorser, by depositing in the post-office at Appalachicola, Florida, notices addressed to him, care of A. Marshall, Fort Gaines, Georgia.
It was in evidence that Vinson resided in Calhoun county, over twenty miles from Fort Gaines; that his post-office was Pachitla, about half a mile from his residence; and that there were four or five offices nearer to him than Fort Gaines.
Several questions were made in the Court below, but only two were argued in the Supreme Court. These were:
1. Whether Vinson was entitled to notice.
2. Whether the mode and proof of notice were sufficient.
Vason & Davis, for plaintiff in error.
No appearance for defendants.
This Court held in the case of Charles Hartridge vs. D. & A. Wesson, 4 Ga. R., page 101, that the provisions of the Act of 26th of December, 1826—Prince's Digest 462, applies to bills of exchange, as well as to promissory notes, and that, therefore, demand and notice were not necessary in order to charge parties secondarily liable on such instruments. That decision is applicable to this case, and renders it unnecessary to pass any opinion upon the numerous questions involved in this record.
We think that his Honor Judge Allen was right, in re-, fusing to give in charge the six requests asked for by defendant\'s counsel; and in ruling that Vinson as drawer was not entitled to notice, as contended for by them.
And further, that he was right in instructing the jury that the plaintiffs had the right to apply the payments made by A. Marshall...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bank Of Richland v. Nicholson
...the paper was payable on its face, or discounted, or left for collection at a bank or banker's office. See Civ. Code, § 3688. In Holmes v. Pratt 34 Ga. 558, it was held that demand and notice were not necessary to charge the drawer of a foreign bill of exchange. While there is an intimation......
-
Bank of Richland v. Nicholson
...the paper was payable on its face, or discounted, or left for collection at a bank or banker's office. See Civ. Code, § 3688. In Holmes v. Pratt, 34 Ga. 558, it was held that and notice were not necessary to charge the drawer of a foreign bill of exchange. While there is an intimation that ......
- Cothran v. Scanlan