Moore v. . Coffield

Ham, Judge. The Judge was right in the three propositions laid down by him in his charge; but another point properly arose upon the facts ¿stated in the case. *249 which was not duly noticed. It was proved that Best, the maker of the obligation, was a seafaring man, and at or about the time the obligation became payable, sailed from Washington, as master of a vessel bound to New-York ; and it did not appear that he had a domicil, or any establishment within the State, at which payment could be demanded. The maker being at sea, in his usual employment, and the indorsee not being bound to follow him beyond the State, it follows, that if he fiad no such domicil or establishment, a demand should be dispensed with. In this view of the case, the Defendant was liable upon Ills indorsement, without any express promise to pay, and the Jury should have been so instructed — and consequently, for the Judge’s omission to give such instruction, there must be a new trial. Per Curiam. — Judgment reversed, and new trial, awarded.