Fahnestock v. Smith
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Clinton District Court. On the 17th day of November, 1858, Eliza A. Toll made her promissory note, payable to Milo Smith, at the banking house of Green, Dakin & Co., in Clinton. On the 21st day of November, 1859 (the 20th being Sunday), a notary residing in Lyons (two miles from Clinton, the place of payment), presented the note at the banking house of Green, Dakin & Co., and demanded payment, which was refused.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Clinton District Court. On the 17th day of November, 1858, Eliza A. Toll made her promissory note, payable to Milo Smith, at the banking house of Green, Dakin & Co., in Clinton. On the 21st day of November, 1859 (the 20th being Sunday), a notary residing in Lyons (two miles from Clinton, the place of payment), presented the note at the banking house of Green, Dakin & Co., and demanded payment, which was refused. The notary, instead of notifying the defendant personally or by notice deposited in the post office at Clinton, returned to Lyons and deposited the notice in the post…
1Opinion of the Court
Lowe, J.—
The only point of controversy is, whether a notice of protest, given under the circumstances stated, is sufficient in law tq hold the indorser. The court below held that it was not. In this opinion we concur. The undertaking of the indorser is, that he will pay the note if' the maker does not, provided the holder (and this conrprehends the agent whom the holder may employ for that purpose), shall give him timely notice of non-payment by the maker. . The question, then, is, did the notary pursue such a mode in giving notice of non-payment to the indorser Smith as the law authorizes…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Bowling v. HarrisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1848
- Butler v. WrightNew York Supreme Court · 1823
- Cuyler v. NellisNew York Supreme Court · 1830
3Cited by2 opinions
- Roberts v. PlayleSupreme Court of Iowa · 1911
- Hamilton v. VeachSupreme Court of Iowa · 1865