North Bank v. Abbot
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Assumpsit upon a promissory note for 1187 dollars, dated February 7, 1828, signed by Willis Barnabee, payable to the defendant or his order, in sixty days from date, at either of the banks in Boston, and indorsed by the defendant to the plaintiffs. The declaration contained a single count upon the note, averring its presentment to the maker at its maturity and demand of payment.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit upon a promissory note for 1187 dollars, dated February 7, 1828, signed by Willis Barnabee, payable to the defendant or his order, in sixty days from date, at either of the banks in Boston, and indorsed by the defendant to the plaintiffs. The declaration contained a single count upon the note, averring its presentment to the maker at its maturity and demand of payment. At the trial, before Morton J., the plaintiffs called Gurdon Steele, the cashier of the North bank, who testified that the note was discounted by the bank ; that on the day when the note became due, an agent of…
1Opinion of the Court
Shaw C. J.
delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an action of assumpsit, by the plaintiffs as holders and indorsees of a promissory note, against the defendant as indorser.
It was contended that, the note being made payable at a place certain, no presentment was necessary.
Where a note is made payable at a particular bank, or other place certain, it has long been held,. and is now well settled, not only that the holder is not bound to present it to the promisor, at any other place, but that a presentment at any other place would be unavailing ; a promisor would be under no obligation to…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Nicholls v. WebbSupreme Court of the United States · 1823
- President of the Berkshire Bank v. JonesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
- Whitwell v. JohnsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1821
- Woodbridge v. BrighamMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1816
- Woodbridge v. BrighamMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1815
3Cited by1 opinion
- Consolidated Kansas City Smelting & Refining Co. v. GonzalesCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1908