|
|
|
|
|
|
|
168 HEPBURN'S CASE.
was completely restored; and the express object of giving him
notice was to enable him at once to collect his debt, or to draw his
effects out of the hands of the Mollisons; which, at the time he
received the notice, amounted to $1,404 44, with interest from the
first of April, 1776, when the whole debt became due.
Not satisfied with pressing the transaction of the bill of ex-
change for the purpose of adding to the amount of the demand
against the Mollisons and the state, the petitioner attempts to use
it as a means of accounting for the long standing of his claim, for
more than half a century. The debt became due on the first of
April, 1776, and the Mollisons might have been then, or at any
time after that, sued for it, in England where they resided, or their
effects might have been attached here. But it is urged, that be-
tween the years 1779 and 1789, the executor had no claim against
the Mollisons, he having lost it by the sale of the bill of exchange,
and it only having been revived in him by his payment of that bill;
or in other words, that the drawing of the bill suspended his right
to sue until after its being protested he had paid the whole amount
on the 16th of June, 1789; and thus the lapse of the first thirteen
years is happily, though singularly accounted for.
It is, however, clear, that although a bill of exchange may be
made payable at any length of time after sight, yet if it be not
accepted, suit may be brought against the drawer and endorser
before the day of payment arrives; and the drawer may, on being
notified of the non-acceptance, proceed forthwith by suit against
the drawee to recover his effects out of his hands, upon which the
bill was drawn. It is, therefore, perfectly manifest that the draw-
ing of the bill could not have, in any way, prevented Hepburn
from collecting his debt from the Mollisons. It may be admitted,
that he was excusable in not proceeding against them until he
heard the fate of his bill; but certainly after being notified of its
non-acceptance, further indulgence could not have been expected
by the Mollisons themselves. And the further delay of the execu-
tor cannot but be considered as a great neglect of the interests of
the creditors and next of kin of his testator. So far, therefore,
from this transaction of the bill of exchange furnishing any reason-
able apology for that delay of about thirteen years, the executor
can be relieved from the imputation of gross negligence in no
other way than by shewing, what I believe to be the truth, that he
actually did receive payment, as stated by himself, on the 12th of
January, 1779, of £260, and obtained assignments for the balance
sometime in or before the year 1790.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
