
    PECQUET vs. MAGER. LACROIX vs. MAGER.
    CONSOLIDATED CASES.
    Eastern Dist.
    
      May, 1839.
    APTEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, JUDGE BUCHANAN PRESIDING.
    Thfere is no necessity for any demand or protest for non-payment of a bill; when the non-acceptance by the drawees, and protest and notice to the drawer, fixes his responsibility.
    •Foreign bills returned with legal protest, entitle the holder to twenty per cent, damages, under the statute.
    
      There is no necessity tor any demand or pro-rnent°of T'biiT; 1vh®“ the non acceptance by the drawees, and UcetoUiTdraw-^ónsibiiUy re"
    These suits are instituted on two bills of exchange, drawn by the defendant on a mercantile firm at Paris, in France, and sold to the plaintiff's; one for three thousand dollars, and the other for five thousand dollars, which were presented to the drawees, who refused to accept; and both bills were noted and protested for non-acceptance, and notice thereof given to the defendant.
    When these bills came to maturity, payment was demanded from the drawees, who refused to pay them, and they were protested for non-payment. All of which, it is alleged, was notified to the defendant.
    It seems the drawer had funds in the hands of the drawees, but on account of some supposed informality, they refused to accept and to pay the bills.
    The contest on the trial was, whether the plaintiffs should look to the drawees or to the defendant; and whether the latter had not made himself unconditionally liable by his subsequent promises to payffhe bills.
    The case, with a mass of evidence, was submitted to a jury, who returned verdicts for the plaintiffs for the amount of their respective demands, with twenty .per cent, damages thereon. From judgment, confirming these verdicts, the defendant appealed.
    
      D. and J. Seghers, for the plaintiffs.
    
      L. Janin, contra.
   Eustis, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

These are suits on bills of exchange drawn on Paris, and protested for non-acceptance and non-payment. Amidst , „ . „ the mass of questions raised in the defence of this case, there ís not one which has not been settled by the well known law of bills of exchange,- and the decisions of this court. , ° There was no necessity for any demand or protest for the non-payment of the bills. The non-acceptance by the drawees, and protest and notice to the drawer, fixed his responsibility. These being returned with a legal protest, entitled the holder to damages under the statute.

Foreign Rills returned with legal protest, entitle the holder to twenty per cent, damages, under the statute.

The judge in his charge to the jury, laid down the law correctly, as to the effect of a subsequent promise to pay; and we find no error in the verdict and judgment rendered in the court below.

• It is, therefore, affirmed with costs in both courts.  