Chapman v. Steinmetz
CHAPMAN verʃus STEINMETZ.
T
HIS was an action brought upon a bill of exchange drawn by the Defendant in favor of the Plaintiff, and by him indorfed in blank ; and a count for money had and received &c. was added in the declaration. The bill being returned protefted, a queftion arofe, whether the Plaintiff was entitled to recover twenty per centum damages?The Defendant contended that the damages ought not to be allowed, becaufe the hill was neither paid, nor accepted, in fatisfaction of the debt for which it was drawn ; and to prove this a receipt was produced from the Plaintiff in the following words:
‘‘ Received 1ft of Sept. 1784 of Mr. Jn. Steinmetz a fet of Bills dated
‘‘ the 30th of Auguft laft on John Bulkley and Co. of Liʃbon for Ł. 478.
‘‘ 17.7 Sterling, which when paid will be in full for the balance of
‘‘account due to the Eftate of the late Wm. Neate or London deceafed.’’
by the court.− It is clear that the bill was neither paid nor received in ʃatisfaction of the precedent debt, but upon the condition of its being honored: it has bot been honored ; confequently, the parties are in the fame fituation, 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 fervant) cannot be entitled to recover damages. See I Shower 163. Debers and al. v. Harriot. The fame point was determined in Watts vs. Willing, tried the laft term.
Upon this opinion, Judgment was entered, by agreement of the parties, for the principal of the original debt, and intereft from the time that the accounts between them were liquidated.
Wilcocks for the Plaintiff. Ingerʃol for the Defendant.