Majority
p. 100Penoyer against Watson.
Headnote
Where a person gives a letter of credit to A., addressed to p. Mid Co., authorizes A. to draw bills to a certain andUCo.,onand togndd?ssóived SipC ^draw's abiii upouP., ran tor ^is “not liable to p., on cíedit® and p. ded,°by?KCietfrornmahitainagainst A^for the biu°which he had aocepted andp aid.THIS was an action of assumpsit, brought to recover the e r 7 0 amount of a bill of exchange drawn by the defendant on e ° v the plaintiff, and which-the latter accepted and paid. The cause was tried before Mr. J. Yates, at the New- York sit- . . tings, 111 April, 1818.
The bill in question was dated at New-York, April 12, 1816, and was drawn at 90 days after date, for 592 dollars and 58 cents. At the trial, the defendant produced in evidence a statement, dated the 13th of April, 1816, and s’8ne<^ by plaintiff, of bills accepted by him on a letter of credit from Jennings Roddy, for account of the defendant. These bills were eight in number, the last of which being the one in question, amounted to 3109 dollars and 89 cents, and were accepted at different times, from the Is* *° tbe 12th of April, 1816. A copy, in the hand writing plainti^ °f the following letter, was annexed to the statement. _ .
. 66 Dear Sirs—This will be handed to you by Mr. Aleñan* der Watson, (the defendant,) from Charleston, S. C. a particular friend of our Mr. Roddy, and whom we beg leave to introduce to your friendly attention, and wé hope that this introduction will be the means of your doing much business together. Mr- Watson is authorized to value on you, on our account, for ten thousand dollars, payable at 60 days
p. 101Again; the defendant was authorized by the letter of credit, to draw on Robert M. Penoyer Co., not on any individual partner of the firm, and he was bound strictly to pursue that authority. (Robbins v. Bingham, 4 Johns. Rep. 476 . Walsh v. Baillie, 10 Johns. Rep. 180 . Myers v. Edge, 7 Term Rep. 254.) Penoyer Co. having dissolved their partnership, prior to the drawing the bill, and it having been accepted by the plaintiff individually, no recourse could be had against Jennings Roddy. It does not appear that the defendant acted as agent % and the presumption is, that he did not. The payment of the bill by the plaintiff was a voluntary act; and having paid it, with a full knowledge of all the circumstances, he cannot maintain an action to recover it back. (2 East, 469. 1 Bos. Pull. 260. 1 Esp. N. P. Cas. 84. 279. 546.)
and 90 days, or at such time as he may make his purchases, and we will also observe, that we will guarantee his purchases for a further sum of ten thousand dollars. Respectfully your friends, Jennings Roddy * The letter was addressed to “ Messrs. Robert M. Penoyer Co., merchants, New-Yotk.
The plaintiff then proved, that he had been in partnership with one Luff, under the firm of Robert M. Penoyer <$• Co. and that on the 1st of April, 1816, previous to the drawing the bill in question, the partnership was dissolved by mutual consent, and that the bill was accepted by the plaintiff in his own name, and on his individual account. A verdict, subject to the opinion of the Court, was found for the plaintiff for the amount of the bill, with interest.
Slosson, for the plaintiff. The defendant drew the bill as principal, which was accepted by the plaintiff; and from the statement produced in evidence, it appeared that this bill was on the individual account of the defendant.
De Witt, contra.
delivered the opinion of the Court. (After stating the facts of the case.) The question is, whether the plaintiff can maintain an action against the defendant on the bill, or must resort to Jennings Roddy.
p. 102
The case of Myers and Edge, (7 Term, Rep. 254.) is prcc¡se]y jn point. There a letter of credit was directed to the house of A. B. & Co. promising to pay for goods to be furnished to D. The goods were furnished after A., one of the partners, had withdrawn from the partnership, and the guarantor was held not to be liable. This Court has recognized the law of that case, in Walsh & Beekman v. Bailie ; ( 10 Johns. Rep. 180 .) and in Robbins v. Bingham, ( 4 Johns. Rep. 476 .) we held, that the surety could not be bound beyond the scope of his engagement.
It does not appear that the defendant has paid the amount of this draft to Jennings & Roddy, or that they have ever been called upon by the plaintiff to pay it, and we see that ' it could not he enforced.
The misconception, that this bill was drawn on the faith of the letter of credit, deprives the plaintiff of none of his rights, and has not led the defendant into any error.
Judgment for the plaintiff.