decided that MAkeiuai»; vras liable $ but at foe Co>:.. 1 of Goiiit.yi-cce, having reflecied on tbi* subjert ead look» 4 kw the bCc.jricífcií, Le changed use opinfoi;, and foe ofoc-y judder venía?!, y v/rfo him, they grrritrü a new fofo VLey tt-Ji this was s purchase ol the bul hy Wilkins, end tho dfow.y ffo » 'v'ili by M'-Eensie for a precedent debt, aau bciug a piirdhis. Mfovw l:oí coacerasdivibe eveas. The cess relied s-r vas *278Esp. Term. Reports, 105, Fulton vs. Reinhard. The cases cited for the plaintiff, were 7 T. 64: For the defendant, 12 Moc. 203—Salk. 124—12 Mod. 408, 517—2 L. R. 930—Andrew's, Rep. 187, 188—2 Salk. 442—3 Salk. 118—12 Mod. 521—6 Mod. 36.
Wilkins v. M'Kenzie, 3 N.C. 277, 2 Hayw. 277 (1803)
June 1803
·
North Carolina Superior Court
3 N.C. 277, 2 Hayw. 277
Wilkins vs. M'Kenzie.
'’fpHE GFi.se was IVIkllfoEisle deposited money with ’Bt!> A day, and applied to bine for part of it, who trnswr. ?<3, 1 n,^ sot pay money but will give bills on Mew-York; I'fofoeifos •foea asked Wilkies if he wrnted a bill on New-Yoik, who an-&wered, ys% and £ will pay part in money, and will give u»y no>t5 for the residue.— He did this, and i'iidt.cBsle gave an order on Ik tccUy for one thousand dollars; but it was understood between k .Yiitías and ICrSetsie, that 2krclsy was to deliver a bill for is on Mew-Yorie. Bai*ci«.y delivered the bill according;ly\, ard % vv.iz rviErned protested, and in the mean tisme Barclay i iíe-:' 5 iv,;i Nc question w-s, on whom the loss chouM iall.