Hale v. Danforth
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Outagamie County. Action against defendant as one of two indorsers of a promissory note. Payment of the note was not demanded at maturity; but, by way of excusing such, demand, the complaint alleges a promise to pay the note made by the defendant before its maturity. All the facts alleged to excuse a demand and protest at maturity are denied by the answer.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Outagamie County. Action against defendant as one of two indorsers of a promissory note. Payment of the note was not demanded at maturity; but, by way of excusing such, demand, the complaint alleges a promise to pay the note made by the defendant before its maturity. All the facts alleged to excuse a demand and protest at maturity are denied by the answer. There was a special verdict containing answers to twenty-three interrogatories, but no general verdict. So much of the special verdict as became important here, is recited in the opinion. The defendant…
1Opinion of the CourtOrton, J.
The note in question was given by one Finney to the plaintiff, and indorsed by one Fowder and the defendant. There can be no question but that the indorsements are several, and that the rights and liability of the two indorsers are as in Linn and another v. Horton, 17 Wis., 152.
Indorsements by two or more persons may be joint, as when partnership or otherwise joint payees are the indorsers, as in Boyd v. Orton, 16 Wis., 499, and as in the cases cited in the brief of the counsel of the appellant; and it may be that two or more indorsers might qualify their indorsement so as to be joint…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Norton v. LewisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1818
- Hollenback v. ShoyerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1863
- Joliet & Northern Indiana Railroad v. JonesIllinois Supreme Court · 1858