Gist v. Lybrand
Ohio Supreme Court
This cause was adjourued from the county of Knox, and came up for decision on a motion for a now trial, made on behalf of the defendant. It was an action upon the case against the defendant, as the indorser of a promissory note, made to Lybrand by Richard Ware, dated Philadelphia, August 4, 1818, payable twelve months after date, and indorsed by the defendant to the plaintiff before it became due.
Read the full summary
This cause was adjourued from the county of Knox, and came up for decision on a motion for a now trial, made on behalf of the defendant. It was an action upon the case against the defendant, as the indorser of a promissory note, made to Lybrand by Richard Ware, dated Philadelphia, August 4, 1818, payable twelve months after date, and indorsed by the defendant to the plaintiff before it became due. One count aveiwed that when the note became payable, diligent search was made for Ware to demand payment of him, but he could not be found, and thereupon the said note was protested for nonpayment,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court:
We all concur in opinion with the Supreme Court of the United States upon the first point in this case. In the case of Magruder v. The Bank of Washington, cited by the plaintiff’s counsel, they have settled that the removal of the maker of the note, after it was made, and before its maturity, into a different state, from that where he resided when the note was made, excuses the holder from making actual demand of payment from the maker. Whether a demand should be made at any other place, is not made a point or adjudicated upon in that case. But it seems to us a clear consequence…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Roberts v. MasonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1840