Brigham v. Smith
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit on two promissory notes made payable by the defendant to one James Wallington or order, “ at the Suffolk Bank Boston ” on demand, &c., and by said payee indorsed to the plaintiff. The writ contained special counts on each note, with an averment of demand at the Bank, and refusal there to pay. The third count was general for money had and received.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on two promissory notes made payable by the defendant to one James Wallington or order, “ at the Suffolk Bank Boston ” on demand, &c., and by said payee indorsed to the plaintiff. The writ contained special counts on each note, with an averment of demand at the Bank, and refusal there to pay. The third count was general for money had and received. No evidence was offered to prove a demand at the Suffolk Bank, and the court instructed the jury that such evidence was not necessary to sustain the action upon the third count. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the…
1Opinion of the CourtParker, C. J.
The rule in England, after some conflict of decisions, has been settled to be that where a note is payable at a particular time and place, a presentment at the place is necessary. And it is admitted that a fortiori it must be held there, that where a note is payable on demand at a particular place, a demand is necessary in order to sustain the action.
In this country it seems to be settled, that on a note payable at a certain time and place, no presentment is necessary to sustain an action against the maker. It was so held in Eastman v. Fifield, 3 N. H. 333. In that case it was said to be…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Haxton v. BishopNew York Supreme Court · 1829
- Bank of Niagara v. M'CrackenNew York Supreme Court · 1821