James v. Badger
New York Supreme Court
This was an action on a promissory note by the plaintiff, as endorsee, against the defendants who were the endorsers. - On the trial it appeared that the note was protested for non-payment on the 17th June, 1797, on which day it fell due; that afterwards, on the same day, the maker called on the plaintiff and paid him 300 dollars in part satisfaction of the' note.
Read the full summary
This was an action on a promissory note by the plaintiff, as endorsee, against the defendants who were the endorsers. - On the trial it appeared that the note was protested for non-payment on the 17th June, 1797, on which day it fell due; that afterwards, on the same day, the maker called on the plaintiff and paid him 300 dollars in part satisfaction of the' note. The residue being unpaid, due notice of non-payment generally was given to the defendant on Monday the 19th of June, following, but unaccompanied with any information that part of the note had been paid by the maker. *A verdict was…
1Per curiam
An acceptance of a part from the maker, does not discharge the endorser, provided the holder gives notice in time, that he looks to him for the residue. Here notice was given, but it was general, and in the usual form, without specifying that any part had been paid. Although this was not strictly correct, according to the fact, yet we think it was sufficient for every beneficial purpose of notice to the endorsers.(a)
Judgment for the plaintiff.
Kennedy v. Motte, 3 McCord, 13; Story on Promissory Notes, § 422, and references.
2Cited by2 opinions
- United States v. HodgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1848
- Burrows v. HanneganU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana · 1838