Oothout v. Ballard
New York Supreme Court
THIS action was brought against the defendants as indorsers of a promissory note, which fell due at the Bank of Che-mung, 26 and 29th November, 1862, (Saturday,) on which day the Elmira banks opened at 10 in the morning and closed at 1 p. m. The holders had left the note with the Elmira Bank for collection, and Mr. Corey, the cashier of the Elmira Bank, during bank hours, on the 29th November, presented the note for payment to the Bank of Chemung, which was refused.
Read the full summary
THIS action was brought against the defendants as indorsers of a promissory note, which fell due at the Bank of Che-mung, 26 and 29th November, 1862, (Saturday,) on which day the Elmira banks opened at 10 in the morning and closed at 1 p. m. The holders had left the note with the Elmira Bank for collection, and Mr. Corey, the cashier of the Elmira Bank, during bank hours, on the 29th November, presented the note for payment to the Bank of Chemung, which was refused. The note was thereafter protested, and due notice thereof directed to the defendants under their firm-name of W. W. Ballard &…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Mason, J.
The only question presented in this case is whether a suit can be maintained against the indorsers of a note payable at a bank, and which has been duly protested, where the suit is commenced on the day of the protest, or the third day of grace. The rule in England, as understood by Chitty, is that the suit on the third day of grace is premature. (See Chitty on Bills, 406, 407, 409, 8th Lond. ed.) And such I understand to be the rule held in Westminster Hall. (Castrique v. Bernabo, 6 Queen’s B. R. 498. Lifferty v. Mills, 4 T. R. 170.) The rule is so understood by Byles.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Osborn v. MoncureNew York Supreme Court · 1829
- Thomas v. ShoemakerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843
- Bank of Syracuse v. . HollisterNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Hopping v. QuinNew York Supreme Court · 1834
- Randolph v. CookSupreme Court of Alabama · 1835
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Cornelius v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1974
- Paul G. Cornelius v. Commissioner Of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1974
- Sutcliffe v. HumphreysSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1895