Edwards v. Moses
Edwards v. Moses
Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
It does not expressly appear whether there were funds of the drawers in the bank at the date of the check, though it seems implied that they were afterwards drawn out by another check, the date of which doth not appear.
It is now well settled, that if the drawer has no effects in the hands of the drawee, from the date to the time of payment, demand and notice are dispensed with. 1 T. ft. 405. 2 T. R. 113. Swift, 290.
By the decisions of this 'Court, in the case of Sutcliffe *and Bird v. M’Dowell,
In the case before us, it is certain only that the check given to I. C. Moses, swept the balance of money in the bank belonging to the drawers. But does it appear that I. C. Moses was not a real creditor, or that the money was purposely withdrawn by defendant to defeat the plaintiff’s check ? By no means.
The general rule, then, applies in all its force ; demand should have been made, and notice given.
The motion is, therefore, granted.
Ante, 257.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Edwards & Haig v. Myer Moses
- Status
- Published