Scattergood v. Findlay

By the Court.

Lumpkin, J.

delivering opinion.

£1.] The plaintiff has declared on this instrument as a draft or bill of exchange, and not as a contract. He alleges in his writ no consideration, but treats it as importing one — as a commercial paper. Can he deny it ? If so, and his objection to it be good, he must go out of Court; for his writ is fatally defective for the reason stated.

But we think plaintiff’s Counsel took the right view'of the' nature of this paper, when he sued on it.

Eindlay draws' on the' Messrs. Hines for $200, on account' of claims in their hands. It is not necessarily to be inferred that the payment was restricted to this fund and no other ? and that was' contingent on their collection. But these are technical difficulties. The main question being, was the transaction between Scattergood, Eindlay & Hines, as the agent of Scott, Carhart & Go. a payment ? The Jury, under a proper charge from the Court as to the law, have found, that it was, and we are satisfied with the verdict.