Jones & Co. v. Middleton
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Harrison District Qourt. Monday, July 25. Middleton made his note to Dailey & Zeisley, payable to their order; after due, Dailey & Zeisley indorsed it to W. A, Jones & Co., the plaintiffs. In the suit to enforce the payment of this note the petition does not state that demand was made of the maker and notice given to the indorsers of non-payment before suit. A demurrer was filed to the petition for this reason and sustained.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Harrison District Qourt. Monday, July 25. Middleton made his note to Dailey & Zeisley, payable to their order; after due, Dailey & Zeisley indorsed it to W. A, Jones & Co., the plaintiffs. In the suit to enforce the payment of this note the petition does not state that demand was made of the maker and notice given to the indorsers of non-payment before suit. A demurrer was filed to the petition for this reason and sustained. The ruling upon the demurrer is the error assigned.
1Opinion of the CourtWilliams, J.
A note payable to order is transferable by indorsement after due, and is so far negotiable. We see no good reason for excusing the indorsee from making demand when the transfer is made in good faith. It is said that a note so transferred after due is, as respects the obligations of the parties, like a note payable on demand; and the same rule we think should hold that governs demand notes. 2 Parsons on Notes aud Bills, 13.
Demand should be made and notice given within a reasonable time, and demand and notice should be stated in the petition.
Affirmed.
2Cited by5 opinions
- Merrill v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- State v. WillifordMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- McKewer v. KirtlandSupreme Court of Iowa · 1871
- Pryor v. BowmanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1874
- McCrae v. SpiresSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1922