Supreme Court of Virginia March 22, 1809 (Smith v. Segar)

[JUDGE! ROAKE-

Was not that doctrine touched on in Machie’s executor v. Davis, (h) in which it was said that case would lie by the payee against the acceptor of a bill of exchange, on the custom of merchants only? In Hooe v. Wilson, and Dunlap v. Triplett, (i) the authority of Chitty was relied on, but overruled.]

Randolph, for the appellee, cited Espi-nasse’s N. P.