...in the place of the drawer" If, therefore, the indorfer, at the time he transfers a bill, knows that the drawer has no effects in the hands of the drawee, he is as guilty of fraud as the drawer himfelf; and in all cafes where money is obtained from another...

...his effects from the drawee, and that no injury may happen to him from want of notice; but where (he drawer has no effects in the hands of the drawee, he cannot be injured, and is not entitled to any notice. Cootltitt v. Dotffir. — In this case, upon nn application for a new trial,...

...the place oj the drawer." If, therefore, the endorsor, at the time he transfers a bill, knows that the drawer has no effects in the hands of the drawee, he is as guilty of fraud as the drawer himself; and in all cases where money is obtained from another...

...Shaw v. Croft. (2C) "It is not necessary to sny, whether the rule which dispenses with notice in cases where the drawer has no effects in the hands of the drawee, was wisely adopted or not. That rule certainly proceeds upon the ground of fraud in the drawer; and...

...particularly in the case mentioned by the plaintiff's counsel, that notice is not necessary to be given where the drawer has no effects in the hands of the drawee i<f) ; for it is a fraud in itself, and if that can be proved, the notice may be dispensed with. In...

...have been willing to let in the affidavit, that would be the like case of Bickcrdike v. Hollman. If the drawer has no effects in the hands of the drawee, he cannot he injured by want of notice. Leggeu. Thorpe, 12 East's Rep. 171.— 2 Campb. 310. SC This was an action...

...have been willing to let in the affidavit, that would be the like case of Bicfcerdiker. Bollman. If the drawer has no effects in the hands of the drawee, he cannot be injured by want of notice. I.egge v. Thorpe, 12 East's Rep. 171.— 2 Campb. 310. SC This was an action by...

...defendant was entitled to notice. It is true, that in Bickerdike v. Bollman (a), it was determined, that where the drawer has no effects in the hands of the drawee, he is not entitled to notice ; but Lord Ellettborough, in Orr v. Maginnis (b), held, that if there be...

...may without delay, withdraw his effects from the drawee, and that no injury may hipp«1 to him from want of notice ; but where the drawer has no effects in the hands ot the drawee, he cannot be injured, »nd в nil entitled to any notice. • In Brown r Maffey, 15...

...formed at the trial. It is not necessary to say whether the rule v/hich dispenses, with notice in cases where the drawer has no effects in the hands of the drawee were wisely adopted op Bot, That rule certainly proceeds upon the ground of fraud in the drawer: and...