Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Chapman v. Steinmetz 1 U.S. 261

← Cases

Chapman v. Steinmetz

1 U.S. 261 1 Dall. 261 Court SCOTUS English

Delivered by By the Court.

Contents

Majority

p. 272
*Chapman v. Steinmetz.

Syllabus

Damages on protested bill.
The payee of a bill, whio was neither paid nor received in satisfaction of a precedent debt, but upon the condition of its being honored, is not entitled to recover the twenty per cent, damages, on protest.
This was an action brought upon a bill of exchange, drawn by the defendant in favor of the plaintiff, and by him indorsed in blank ; and a count for money liad and received, &c., was added in the declaration. The bill being returned protested, a question arose, whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover twenty per c&ntum damages ?
The defendant contended, that the damages ought not to be allowed, because the bill was neither paid nor accepted, in satisfaction of the debt for which it was drawn ; and to prove this, a receipt was produced from the plaintiff in the following words : “Received, 1st of Sept. 1784, of Mr. Jn. Steinmetz, a set of bills, dated the 30th August last, on John Bulkley & Co. of Lisbon, for 478i. 17s. 'id. sterling, which when paid will be in full for the balance of account due to the estate of the late Wm. Neale of London, deceased.”
Wilcocks, for the plaintiff. Ingersoll, for the defendant.

It is clear, that the bill was neither paid nor received in satisfaction of the precedent debt, but upon the condition of its being honored : it has not been honored ; consequently, the parties are in the same situation, as if it had never been drawn ; and the plaintiff (who was, in fact, agent for the drawer, and to receive the money as his servant) cannot be entitled to recover damages. See Dehers et al. v. Harriot, 1 Show. 163. The same point was determined in Watts v. Willing, tried the last term,[1]

Upon this opinion, judgment was entered, by agreement of the parties, for the principal of the original debt, and interest from the time that the account between them was liquidated.

(a) (a) 2 Dall. 100 ; s. p. Keppele v. Carr, 4 Id. 155 ; and see Evans v. Smith, 4 Binn. 866 ; Brown v. Jackson, 1 W. C. C. 512; 2 Id. 24