
    Kenner & Henderson vs. Kennedy & Cox.
    owS,H °iíttíing purchased a quan-Ka„dc,Cdrewnbn“ on them for the amount. which being protested for non wtreaUig^i to pay pires,according to tom"prevaUuigC*in attcrwartU^br.mgiu th.i, action against mountnaituiy uleni suit'warrefi’rred! and the arhitratots’ sidUaíióif tíí'°ionp “d'tteam™n.vtoifj pais i>y k and c, vinch ajldffni/ot which wá™'aftM> ward, wtisfiid. ic broughtVnactíon mové!?hín1oCp‘c damages — Held,iivAt titled to recgvk™"
    Appeal from Baltimore County Court. Assumpsit on sun(b’y bills of exchange drawn by the plaintiffs, (now ap-pedants,) on the defendants, (the appellees,) and by them accepted, &c. The general issue was pleaded.
    . . ^ _ At the trial the plaintiffs proved, that the defendants, and a certain John Sherlock, all of whom resided in the of Baltimore, m the year 1806, authorised and .empowered the plaintiffs, who resided in the city of Bern Orleans, to purchase, on their account, a quantity of cotton, amounting to the sum of-■, and to ship the same to ¿>es Sherlock, of Liverpool. That the plaintiffs made the purchase, and drew bills on the defendants to reimburse diem f°r Part the money expended by the plaintiffs in making the purchase; which bills were accepted by the defendants, and afterwards duly protested for nonpayment; which bills they offered in evidence. Of which protests due notice was given to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs lur-(her offered evidence, that after the bills were protested, f,)r nonpayment they, as the drawers of the bills, paid the amount thereof, with ten per cent damages, to the respec-live holders; and they further offered evidence, that according to the usage and customs of merchants prevailing at the city of New Orleuns, the holder of a protested bill of exchange drawn at New Orleans, on a person in any one of the United States, is entitled to receive from the drawer of the bill ten per cent, damages on the amount of the bill. And the plaintiffs stated to the court and jury, that he present suit was instituted solely to recover ten joer cent, damages on the said bills of exchange, with interest and costs thereon, amounting together to S|,2i>7 92. The defendants rhen proved, that the plaintiffs to October term 1808 instituted a suit in Baltimore county court against these defendants, and the said Sherlock, to recover the amount by the plaintiffs expended in making the said purchase of cottons, with interest thereon. That the defendants and Sherlock appeared to that suit, and after-wards, at April term 1311, it was referred, by the consent of the parties, and by order of the court, to Robert Oliver and William Cole, who acted as arbitrators, and who awarded that there was due to the plaintiffs the sum of go,643 51, on which award a judgment was rendered, which has been since satisfied and paid. And the defendants further proved, that the arbitrators awarded to the plaintiffs the full amount of the money then due and expended by them, with interest, in making the purchase of the cotton. And that the arbitrators, in forming their award, did not take into ronsid eral ion the damages on the said protested bills. The defendants then moved the court to direct the jury, that if they believed these facts, the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover; and the Court, \ Nicholson, Ch. J. and Bland A J.] gave the direction. The plaintiff's excepted; and the verdict and judgment being against them, they appealed to this court.
    The cause was argued before Buchanan, Earle, Johnson, and Martin, J. by
    
      Harper, for the Appellants, and by
    
      VP. Dorsey, for the Appellees.
   JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.  