Griffith v. Assmann
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. I. The rule is that when the parties to be charged as indorsers live in the same town or city where the note is made payable, the notice must be given to the party entitled thereto personally, or at his domicile or place of business. (Sto. Prom. Notes, §812.) II. The holder, at maturity, having undertaken to notify the defendant, it was its duty to use due diligence.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. I. The rule is that when the parties to be charged as indorsers live in the same town or city where the note is made payable, the notice must be given to the party entitled thereto personally, or at his domicile or place of business. (Sto. Prom. Notes, §812.) II. The holder, at maturity, having undertaken to notify the defendant, it was its duty to use due diligence. The defendant was clearly discharged as to the holder at maturity, and, being once discharged, cannot be made liable by subsequent proceedings. (Renshaw v. Triplett, 23 Mo. 213 ; Glasgow v.…
1Opinion of the CourtBliss, Judge
Defendant Assmann made his promissory note at three months to the order of Severin, who indorsed the same to the plaintiff, doing business in Cincinnati. The plaintiff indorsed it to the *68Lafayette National Bank of Cincinnati, who indorsed it for collection to the Merchants’ National Bank,of. St- Louis. Both defendants reside in St. Louis, and at maturity of* the note the holder caused the same to.be presented at the German Bank of St. Louis,, where it was payable; and payment being refused it was regularly protested, and separate notices of protest, addressed to each of the indorsers, were on…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- West River Bank v. TaylorNew York Court of Appeals · 1865
3Cited by3 opinions
- Vogel v. StarrMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
- Big Sandy National Bank v. ChiltonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1895
- State ex rel. Workingmen's Banking Co. v. EdmundsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1896