1816. A., in Lon don, acts as the agent of B. ris, for a small commission GOUPY and Others v. HARDEN and Others. THE HIS was an action by the holder of two bills of exchange against the defendants as in and Co. at Pa- dorsers, drawn 15th of May 1815, by De Franca and Co., to the defendants' order, upon Gould and general busi- Co. of Lisbon, at thirty days' sight The bills upon their ness. B. and Co. request 4. were indorsed by defendants to plaintiffs. to remit them a bill on Portu gal, which A. accordingly The plaintiffs were merchants at Paris; and the does, and in- defendants acted as their general agents in London. In May 1815, the plaintiffs requested the defendants to remit them 1000l. on Portugal, at seventy-two days. The defendants, in compliance with this request, remitted the bills by post. At that time against him by the house of De Franca and Co., the drawers, was dorses it. The indorsement being without qualification, A. is liable upon the bill, in an action brought B. and Co. no fixed time when it shall the drawee; 2. If a bill is in great credit, and continued solvent until the drawn payable middle of July. The bills were immediately put at so many days after into circulation by the French house; and it apsight, there is peared that they had been in negociation on vabe presented to rious parts of the continent. The defendants heard and it may be no more of the bills until the 12th of October, put into gene- when a letter was written by the plaintiffs to the by the holder defendants, informing them that Gould and Co. vious present had refused to accept them, and demanding payment of the defendants. It was in evidence that ment must not the defendants acted as agents for the plaintiffs, for withstanding be made within a small commission, and not upon a del credere. ral circulation without a pre ment. 3. Semble, that a present a reasonable time. Lens, serjeant, for the defendants.-There are 1816. GOUPY v. HARDEN and Others. two objections to this action: the defendants acted as agents to the plaintiffs. They indorsed the bills for the purpose of remitting them, and not and Others with a view of becoming responsible. Undoubtedly the indorsement was general: but the situation of the parties may be explained by evidence ; and it was apparent in this case, that they did not mean to guarantee the bills, but merely to discharge the duty of an agent. 2. The plaintiffs have been guilty of laches. The bills were payable at thirty days' sight. If they had been sent to Gould and Co. with due diligence, and he had refused to accept, upon notice of the dishonour to the defendants, they might have recovered against the house of De Franca and Co., which continued solvent more than two months from the date of the bills: but, instead of transmitting the bills in the ordinary way to Lisbon, they are sent into general circulation, and the defendants hear nothing of the transaction till five months after their indorsement. Best, serjeant, for the plaintiffs.-The defendants have not restricted their liability by any special indorsement; they have become parties to the bills without any qualification, and are therefore liable upon them. With respect to the second objection, as the bills are payable at so many days after sight, there is no time within which the holder could be limited to present them for acceptance. GIBBS, C. J.-With respect to the first objection, I think it is no defence to the action. The 1816. GOUPY and Others v. HARLEN and Others. defendants have indorsed without any qualification. The question of agency does not fairly arise in this transaction. If the plaintiff's had considered the defendants to be acting as agents; still when they read their names upon these bills as indorsers, they had a right to consider that they intended to make themselves liable as principals. As to the second objection, the distinction is between bills payable at a certain number of days after date, and bills payable at a certain number of days after sight. In the former, the holder is bound to use all due diligence, and to present such bill at its maturity: but, in the latter case, he has a right to put the bill into circulation before he presents it; and then of course it is uncertain when it will be presented to the drawee. It is to the prejudice of the holder if he delays to do it; he loses his money and his interest. There are dicta that it ought to be done in a reasonable time. Verdict for plaintiffs. Best, serjeant, and Campbell, for plaintiffs. Lens and Vaughan, serjeants, and Marryatt, for defendants. In the ensuing term, Best, serjeant, moved for a rule to shew cause, why there should not be a new trial. The Court refused the rule, adding, that they entirely concurred in the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice. The purchaser of a foreign bill of exchange, payable at a certain time after sight, which is publicly offered for negocia 1816. Goods. ship. Mo ped from GERALDES V. DONISON. ONEY had and received.-The action was brought to recover the sum of 1127. 16s. 6d. which the plaintiff alleged that he had overpaid, under a bill of lading, for freight. The cargo was sugars, consigned from the Brazils; and, by the freight)accord terms of the bill of lading, they were to be paid for at ten guineas per ton. The weight of the sugar, which was in foreign denominations, was written in the margin of the bill of lading; cording to the and the question was, whether the sugar was to be pressed in the paid for according to the actual weight at the ing to their net weight as ascertained at the King's landing scales, and not ac weights ex bill of lading, a special con. tract so to pay unless there be King's beams, or according to the weights expressed in the bill of lading. The plaintiff had paid freight according to the description in the bill of lading. for them. him, pay more amounts to, he may recover back the surplus in an aetion for money had and received. Best, serjeant, for the defendant, contended, 1. That the weight in the margin of the bill of lading was the measure of payment. There were no terms in the contract that the sugar was to be taken by its weight at the King's beams.2. The plaintiff has paid, and the account is settled. He has taken the sugar at the weights expressed in the bill of lading, and cannot now resort to another measure.-3. This is a written contract: the parties are supposed to mean what the contract expresses; and no usage can be permitted to controul it. Vaughan serjeant, and F. Pollock, contrà. |