Summary

by John Marshall Konig v. Bayard — Opinion of the Court

Any stranger has a right to intervene in case of the non-acceptance, or non-payment of a bill of exchange. This is an established usage in commercial operations, and contributes essentially to their safety and certainty. To the drawer and endorsers, it saves the damages on the bill, which would be payable on its return, and prevents other heavy expenses.
The guarantee of the drawees, in favour of the plaintiff, was an arrangement exclusively between the parties; and the defendants have no right to look to it in the transaction.
Source: Wikisource

by John Marshall Konig v. Bayard — Opinion of the Court

It is not alleged that the drawees had any funds of the drawer in their hands.
The plaintiff in this case must be considered as the agent of N. & J. & R. Van Staphorst, and as having paid the bill at their instance. All parties concur in stating this fact. The Van Staphorsts adopted this circuitous course, instead of interposing directly in their own names, under the advice of counsel. They however immediately stated the transaction in its genuine colours, to the defendants. It is impossible to doubt, that a person may thus intervene, through an agent, if it be his will to do so.
Source: Wikisource

by John Marshall Konig v. Bayard — Opinion of the Court

Konig & Co. who had the said bill in hand, informed them of the whole case, and requested these gentlemen, under our guarantee, to intervene on behalf of your signature, with acceptance and payment of above bill; which favour these gentlemen have not refused to us, so that, without our prejudice, and completely without yours, we have duly protected your interest. We are well persuaded you would not wish us to have done any act which we might think detrimental to us, and we thus are confident, that you will duly appreciate our conduct in this truly awkward affair.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature