1862. SCOTT V. PILKINGTON. "And these defendants, further answering said third cause of action in the said complaint, say that they have not knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether or not at any time the said Acker & Harris endorsed the said last mentioned bill of exchange, or offered the same for sale, or as to whether or not the plaintiffs relied on the faith or credit of said letter, or had any notice that the said last mentioned bill of exchange had been drawn in pursuance thereof, or by virtue of the power or authority thereby conferred, or that the same had been purchased by the said Acker & Harris upon the faith or credit thereof, or as to whether or not the said plaintiffs purchased or received the said bill of exchange of or from said Acker & Harris, or as to whether or not the said plaintiffs, on the faith or credit of said letter, paid therefor the sum of 48221%% dollars, or any other sum; or as to whether or not the plaintiffs became, or were, or are the holders or owners of the said last mentioned bill of exchange. And they deny that the said plaintiffs are entitled to have or demand of or from the defendants their acceptance, in writing or otherwise on, or payment of the said last mentioned bill of exchange. And these defendants admit the presentation of the said last mentioned bill of exchange for acceptance, and the refusal of these defendants to accept the same; but they say that they have not knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to who caused the said last mentioned bill of exchange to be presented for acceptance, or acceptance to be demanded; and they deny that such refusal was to the wrong or injury of the said plaintiffs, or contrary to any promise of these defend ants. "And these defendants, further answering said third cause of action, say that they have not knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether or not the premium of exchange had advanced as stated in said last mentioned cause of action, or as to whether or not the plaintiffs have suffered loss or damage to any amount whatever; but they aver that this action was commenced on 1st September, 1856, and that the said last mentioned bill of exchange was not presented for acceptance until after said 1st September, 1856. "And these defendants, for another and a separate and distinct answer to said complaint, and each and every of the said causes of therein contained, say that they, these defendants, have never been copartners in business except in Liverpool in England in the kingdom of Great Britain, and that the contract contained in the letter set out in the said complaint, and bearing date 16th February, 1856, was, by the understanding of the parties and by its own terms, to be performed in said England and not elsewhere, and that, as these defendants are informed and believe, the construction and force thereof must be according to and governed by the law of said England. "And these defendants, further answering the said complaint, say that, as they are informed and believe, the law of said England was at the time of the making and delivery of said letter and ever since has been, that, for a refusal by these defendants to accept any bill drawn under said letter, Fleming & Alden alone would have and could maintain an action against these defendants; but that no person or persons other than said Fleming & Alden could or can, for any cause whatever, have or maintain an action on said letter, by reason or means of anything therein contained, against these defendants. 1862. SCOTT V. PILKINGTON. 1862. SCOTT V. PILKINGTON. "And these defendants, further answering the said complaint, say that, as they are informed and believe, the said letters and the contracts therein contained are, by the law of the said England, merely a chose in action and not negotiable, and by said law there is no privity of contract between the said plaintiffs and these defendants; and that, on a refusal by these defendants to accept the bills of exchange or any of them mentioned in said complaint, no cause of action existed or exists in favour of the above plaintiff's against the defendants. "And these defendants, further answering the said complaint, say that, as to all matters and statements in said complaint contained not hereinbefore specifically admitted or denied, these defendants have not knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief. "Wherefore these defendants pray that the said complaint may be dismissed with costs. "Miller & Develin, defendants' attorneys, No. 53, Liby St., City and County of New York. "John E. Develin, being duly sworn, says that he is one of the attorneys of the above defendants; and he further saith that he hath read the foregoing answer, and knows the contents thereof, and that the same is true of his own knowledge except as to the matters stated on information and belief, and that as to those matters he believes it to be true. "And this deponent further saith that the said defendants, and each of them, resides and is in England in the kingdom of Great Britain, and that neither of them is in the county of New York, and that this deponent and Jonathan Miller, the other attorney of defendants, reside in the said county of New York. And this deponent further saith that he has no personal knowledge of the matters stated in the said answer; that the defence in the above entitled action is founded in part on written instruments, which are in the possession of this deponent; that he has had correspondence with the said defendants on the subject of the matters stated in said complaint and answer, and that they have stated to him the case in full as he verily believes that another part of said defence is founded on the law of England, and that he has consulted the English Reports and also English lawyers in regard to such law: and that the above are the grounds of his belief as to the truth of the matters in said answer, and the reasons why same is not verified by defendants or either of them. "Sworn to before me this 5th day of August, 1857. "Signed, J. T. Robin, Commissioner of Deeds. "Within is a copy of the answer of the defendants in the above entitled action. "New York, 5th August, 1857. "Miller & Develin, defendants' attorneys. "To Martin & Smiths, Esquires, Nassau St. "At a special term of the Supreme Court of the state of New York, held at the City Hall of the city of New York, on the 3rd of August, 1859. Present, Hon. Daniel P. Ingraham, Justice. "Wm. B. Scott, and others against Daniel Pilkington "John Munroe and others against the same. "On reading and filing the annexed consent and on motion of Martin & Smiths, plaintiffs' attorneys, it is ordered that the above entitled actions, and all the issues therein, be and the same are hereby referred to 1862. SCOTT v. PILKINGTON. 1862. SCOTT V. PILKINGTON. Henry Nicholl Esquire, Counsellor at Law, as sole "John Claney, Clerk. "Due service of the within order is hereby admitted. "Dated, New York, August 3d, 1859. J. E. Develin, defendants' attorney. "New York Supreme Court. "Wm. B. Scott et al. against John Pilkington and Daniel Pilkington. "To the Supreme Court. "I, Henry Nicholl, of the city of New York, to whom by an order made in this action on the 3d August, 1859, all the issues therein were referred to hear and determine the same, do report that I have been attended by the attorneys and counsel of the parties, plaintiffs and defendants in this action, and that, after having heard their respective allegations and proofs; I do find that, on or about 16th February, 1856, the defendants made and delivered to the firm of Fleming & Alden, of the city of New York, a paper writing in the words and figures following: Messrs. Fleming & Alden, 94, Wall Street, New York.-New York, 16th February, 1856. Gentlemen, In reply to your communication made to me this morning, respecting your drawing exchanges upon us, I would state that you have our authority to do so, and all such exchanges drawn upon us will be duly honoured and protected. This power, however, is subject to being withdrawn at any future time. Yours very truly, Daniel Pilkington, of and for the firm of Pilkington Brothers, Liverpool. "That the said paper writing was made and executed in the city of New York by the defendant Daniel Pilkington, then in said city, for and on behalf of Pilkington Brothers, of Liverpool, England, composed of the |