Pratt v. Chase
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract upon a promissory note, made by Melvin E. Dam, payable to the order of the defendant, and indorsed by him to the plaintiffs. Answer: 1st. A denial of due demand and notice. 2d. A composition under the U. S. St. of June 22, 1874, § 17. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Oolburn, J., it appeared that the plaintiffs indorsed the note to the Wamesit Bank, who held the same until after maturity.
Read the full summary
Contract upon a promissory note, made by Melvin E. Dam, payable to the order of the defendant, and indorsed by him to the plaintiffs. Answer: 1st. A denial of due demand and notice. 2d. A composition under the U. S. St. of June 22, 1874, § 17. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Oolburn, J., it appeared that the plaintiffs indorsed the note to the Wamesit Bank, who held the same until after maturity. The defendant testified that on the second day of grace he Bent for the plaintiffs to come and see him, and they sent their clerk, Kimball; that he told Kimball that Dam, the maker, had…
1Opinion of the CourtDevens, J.
Although the plaintiffs did not actually hold the note in suit at the time of the occurrence of the facts and conversation which it is contended constitute a waiver by the defendant of demand upon the maker and notice of non-payment, yet they may avail themselves of such waiver even if it was not communicated to the holder. The plaintiffs were subsequent indorsers of the note, responsible upon it to the indorsee, to whom they had transferred it for value. If they themselves were satisfied to waive demand and notice, they might well neglect to see that such demand was made and notice given by…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- In re BecketU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana · 1875
3Cited by2 opinions
- Woolsey v. HoganMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
- Hewes v. RandMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880