Greffet v. Dowdall
Missouri Court of Appeals
Error to the St. Louis Circuit Court, Barclay, J. This cause is submitted on the authority of Kleinman v. Boernstein (32 Mo. 311); and Edwards y. Thomas (66 Mo. 468). The notary’s certificate is prima facie evidence of demand, protest, and notice. — Rev. Stat. sect. 2320; Bank v. Hatch, 78 Mo. 13-22; Bank v. Chambers, .14 Mo. App. 152.
1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.
The plaintiff having taken a non-suit as to the second count .of the petition, the questions for decision arise exclusively upon the first count. The action, as stated in this count, is upon a negotiable promissory note for $400, made by EL EL McCabe, at St. Louis, Missouri, on the 27th day of September, 1873, payable sixty days after date, to the order of Joseph A. Dowdall, this defendant, by whom it was endorsed before maturity. It was protested for non-payment on the 29th of November, 1873, and the certificate of the notary *281recites: “Of all which I have given dne notice in writing and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bank of Commerce v. ChambersMissouri Court of Appeals · 1883