Open main menu

Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/150

This page needs to be proofread.

7.. tg Casas ruled and adjudged in we ' g, cd, certilied aclerk of the Chan , to have been li ed ¢;,3`; by the late diiitftors of the Spiel-»H<;Z, in his prefencefrind ' that of the commillioners. The return was objeéled to, and, Br aus Corner:-—'1`his is not a good execution of the oommillion. The teliimony is not taken under oath: And, as tothe ` eviderneeini itisnotan {ew per,

 oliioers, who bsd, at that time, thsacuf-

cody of the Sp¤2LHo$:“or of the books. They {tile themfelres dreloudireétors. ` paper,therefore,isnot admillible as Goacsaar a aL wrjo.: M·Cn.1·r. HIS wasannélionbrou t the indorfors,_tlri a `

 T againltthe acceptor oiba gillof Exchange 5  

/q§_ drawn inFr•nu, and hadbeen feveral times indorfed, andjudg— ‘ 2. ment was confeH'ed by the defendant, fubje£t to the opinion of _ 33- on cam,-whom pssemmoe the summa was mm.

 evidence, without further proof, that tlie plaintiffs had

R. Ll·3· the fubfequent indorfce ? Or, was prfmafrcie evidence of 27$ fuch payment, lisiiicient, unlefs contrary evidence was produ- t ° ced, on the part of the defendant ? The caufe was argued on the 2 15th September, 1791, by Raw]: and Du)om·euu,f01· the plain- hééj tins, and by Ingzroll for the defendant. _ _ ,4 ' For the plai ‘ ritwas urged, that upongeneralprineiples, I rhepollellion of thebill and proteit, in this country, ·as well ‘ ‘ ‘ as in England, is fulzlicient evidence of tlreproperty; that the bill,however, was a French bill, and in France, the poileflion wouldbe deemed conclulive. Ordou. Louir 14. A8. rx ; and _ that the objection was too late after a judgment confefled, when the matter muil be treatedas if before a ]ury of Inquiry. Lovelace 154. 278. In mercantile cafes a greater latitude of evidence is always admitted, than in cafes of any other defcrip- tion. Thus, the protell: of a bill is fuliicient proof of a de- mand of pa ment. If, indeed, the fpolfeilion of a foreign bill is not regarrled as the bell evidence o the plaintill·’s property, the refulring inconveniences to commerce would be injurious in M the higheil degree. Commillions mult illiae in eve a€tion_on a . bill of exchange, to eilablifh payments in every dizerent place, in which the different indorfces may chance to relide. It is true, that there is no authoritative precedent; for, the ealein Ld. Raym. 74:, is s mere loofe note, made on the reportof `a few merchants, and the deeilion (whiclnclcarly roves too much, if any thing, to wit, that the receipt ought to he on the protell*)· may ave beengiven under circumllancesof fufpicion ; buttjae univcr al