
    
      Wm. KENNER & AL. vs. THEIR CREDITORS.
    
    If on a comparison of the day of acceptance, the day designated for payment, and the tenor of the bill, it appears the days of grace were included with those of sight, between the day of acceptance arid that designated for payment, that day is the peremptory one 0f payment, and protest on it is legal.
    If the acceptance he not dated, parol evidence is admissible to show on what day it was made.
    If, on comparison of the day of acceptance. the day designated for payment, and the tenor of the bill, it appears the days of grace were included with those between the day of acceptance and that designated for payment, that day is the peremptory one of payment, and protest on it is legal. If the acceptance be not dated, parol evidence is admissible to show on what day it was made
    
      Aeteal from the court of the parish and City of New Orleans.
    The case is similar to that in which the president, Sfc. of the bank of the United gta^eg> were appellants — -8 Martin, n. s. 36, and which was decided in May term, 1829, of this court. The principles on which its decision depend were then settled, after much discussion, and we believe them to be estab-7 lished on a just and sound interpretation of' the laws applicable to these cases.
    There is one slight difference in the present ° r .case, from that referred to, arising on the contract of deposit made between William Me-Muado Duncan & Sons, who were acceptors of the bills of exchange and their creditors.
    In the case of the bank of the United States it appeared that its officers had received a dividend of the deposit, amounting to seven shillings in the pound on their claims. The same amount in relation to the claims of Hicks & Sons, seems to remain in the hands of the de-positees, for the benefit, and subject to the order of the former, according to certain conditions to be by them performed in relation to the depositors. Thiscircumstanceof difference, does not, in our opinion, materially change the essential merits of the two cases.
    It is therefore ordered, &c. that the judgment of the parish court be avoided, reversed and annulled. And it is further ordered &c. that the appellants be restored on the tableau as creditors of the insolvents, for the amounf; 0f their respective claims, deducting therefrom at the rate of seven shillings in each pound sterling, being the amount deposited for their use and benefit in the hands of Cropper, Benson So Co. and William and James Brown, So Co. of Liverpool. The appellees to pay costs of the appeal, the appellants those before..
     