Bank of Washington v. Triplett (1828)
In Bank of Washington v. Triplett (1828) 26 U.S. 25, the collecting bank was sought to be held liable, Chief Justice Marshall says:
"The duty of that bank was precisely the same, whoever might be the owner of the bill, and if it was unwilling to undertake the collection without precise information on the subject, that duty ought to have been declined. The first prayer of the defendants in the Circuit Court being to instruct the jury that, upon the whole evidence, the plaintiff ought not to recover, if it might properly have been granted in any case in which any testimony was offered, certainly ought not to have been granted if any possible construction of that testimony would support the action. The liability of the bank for the bill placed in its hands undoubtedly depends upon the question whether reasonable and due diligence has been used in the performance of its duty."
It was also said by Chief Justice Marshall, in delivering the opinion:
"The allowance of days of grace is a usage which pervades the whole commercial world. It is now universally understood to enter into every bill or note of a mercantile character, and to form so completely a part of the contract, that the bill does not become due, in fact or in law, on the day mentioned on its face, but on the last day of grace. A demand of payment previous to that day will not authorize a protest, or charge the drawer of the bill. This is universally admitted, if the bill has been accepted."