7. An instrument in the form of a bill
of exchange, drawn upon and accept-
ed by the cashier of a bank, and pay.
able to order, in the city of New-
York, at a specified period after date,
is entitled to days of grace; and evi
dence of a local usage cannot be re-
ceived for the purpose of varying its
legal effect in this particular. The
Merchants' Bank of the city of New-
York v. Woodruff,
174

8.

9.

The agent of a company, with the
assent of his principals, and in order
to raise money for their benefit, drew
a bill of exchange in his own name
on a part of them, payable to the or-
der of A., who endorsed it for the ac-
commodation of the company. The
drawees accepted the bill, and it was
discounted by a bank and the pro-
ceeds applied by the agent in the
company's business. A. was obliged
to pay it on its becoming due, and he
afterwards brought an action against
all the members of the company to
recover the amount. Held, that
though they were not jointly liable on
the bill, A. could recover under the
common counts as for money paid to
their use. Allen v. Coit and others,
impleaded &c.
318

The agent of a company, with the
assent of his principals, and in order
to discharge their debt, drew a bill of
exchange in his own name on a part
of them, payable to the creditor,
which, after being accepted, was en-
dorsed and delivered to a third per-
son, who brought an action against
all the members of the company to
recover the amount. Held, that there
was no privity between them and the
plaintiff, and that an action was not
maintainable either upon the bill itself
or the original consideration. Rogers
v. Coit and others,
322

10. Otherwise, had it clearly appeared
that the name in which the bill was
either drawn or accepted was one of
those by which the company allowed
themselves to be known and repre-
id
sented. Per COWEN, J.

11. In general, where an action is
brought on a note by an endorsee or
other third person not named in it, he
will be presumed to have taken it in
the usual course of negotiating com-
mercial paper; and the onus will be
upon the maker, if he seek to avail

659

BREACH, ASSIGNMENT OF.

See PLEADING, 4 to 6, 13 to 17, 28, 29.

BRIDGES.

See ALBANY, CITY OF.
FRANCHISE, 2, 3.

BRIEF.

See COSTS, 23.

BURYING GROUND.

See DEDICATION.

BY-LAW.

See PLEADING, 8.

C

"CALL."

See CONTRACT, 4, 5.

CANALS.

The owner of lands "appropriated by
the canal commissioners to the use of
the public" is entitled to have his
damages appraised as soon as the
agents of the state have taken posses-
sion of the property and commenced
executing the contemplated work. He
is not bound to wait until the work is
completed. The People, ex rel. Ut.
ley, v. Hayden and others, canal
appraisers,
359

CARRIER.

1. Where goods are delivered to a carrier,
marked for a particular destination,
without any directions as to their
transportation and delivery save such
as may be inferred from the marks
themselves, the carrier is only bound
to transport and deliver them accord-
ing to the established usage of the bu

157

2. In an action to recover the value of
goods entrusted to the defendants for
transportation, it appeared that they
were engaged in the carrying business
on the Hudson river, by means of a
line of tow-boats which ran between
New-York and Albany, and were not
interested in any transportation line
west of the latter place; that they re-
ceived on board one of their boats,
from the plaintiffs, a box of goods
marked "J. P., Little Falls, Herkimer
Co.," and gave a receipt for it in
these words, Rec'd of J. & T., [the
plaintiffs,] on board the tow.boat &c.
[naming it,] a box of merchandize
marked J. P., Little Falls, Herkimer
Co.;" that the plaintiffs gave no spe-
cial directions as to the place where
the box was to be delivered, nor as to
the mode of delivery; that upon its ar-
rival at Albany the defendants deliver.
ed it safely on board a canal boat be-
longing to a responsible line, whose
route lay through Little Falls, this
being in accordance with the uniform
usage of all carriers between New.
York and Albany, in similar cases;
and that before the canal boat reached
Little Falls the box was broken open
and rifled of its contents. Heid that,
though the plaintiffs were ignorant of
the usage mentioned, the circum-
stances were insufficient to make out
a contract on the part of the defend.
ants to deliver the box at Little Falls,
and that their responsibility as common
carriers ceased at Albany, where they
became mere forwarders.
id

3. Held further, that as the mode in
which the defendants forwarded the
goods from Albany was in accordance
with the uniform usage of the business
in which they were engaged, and no
want of care on their part in selecting
a proper vehicle was shown, they were
not liable.
id

4. Trover may be maintained against a
common carrier where the goods en-
trusted to him are lost by his act,
though without any wrongful intent;
as where he delivers them to the
wrong person by mistake, or under a
forged order. Per BRONSON, J. Haw-
kins v. Hoffman,
586

Frey v. Leeper, (2 Dall. 131,) comment-
ed on and explained. Burkle &
Gebhard, ex'rs &c., v. Luce, 558
Gibson v. Colt, (7 Johns. Rep. 390,) was
much shaken, if not entirely over-
thrown, by the decision in Sandford v.
Handy, (23 Wend. 260.) Per BRON.
SON, J. Nelson v. Cowing & Sey
336
Gilman v. Rives, (10 Peters' Rep. 299,)
commented on and explained. Per
WALWORTH, chancellor. Burgess v.
Abbott & Ely,
135

mour,

Harvey v. Skillman, (22 Wend. 571,)

cited and explained. Knapp v. Cur-
tiss and others, executors &c. 386
Inman v. Foster, (8 Wend. 602,) com-
mented on and disapproved. Root v.
Lowndes,

518
Jackson, ex dem. Parker, v. Phillips, (9
Cowen, 94,) so far as it holds that one
who affixes his name to an instrument
after its execution, without being re-
quested, is a good subscribing witness,
disapproved. Per BRONSON, J. Hol.
lenback v. Fleming,

303