Gill v. Palmer
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Assumpsit, brought against the defendant as indorser of the following draft:— “ Robbins & Lawrence Co., Windsor, Yt., Oct. 6,1856. “ $8000. Four months after date, pay to the order of Robbins & Lawrence, three thousand dollars, value received and charge to the account of The Robbins & Lawrence Co., W. Currier, Pres.” “ To Charles St. John, 142 Water st., New York.” “ Accepted, Charles St. John.” [Indorsed] “Robbins & Lawrence.” “J. C. Palmer.”
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, brought against the defendant as indorser of the following draft:— “ Robbins & Lawrence Co., Windsor, Yt., Oct. 6,1856. “ $8000. Four months after date, pay to the order of Robbins & Lawrence, three thousand dollars, value received and charge to the account of The Robbins & Lawrence Co., W. Currier, Pres.” “ To Charles St. John, 142 Water st., New York.” “ Accepted, Charles St. John.” [Indorsed] “Robbins & Lawrence.” “J. C. Palmer.” On the trial, upon the general issue closed to the court, the plaintiff offered the deposition of the notary who protested the draft, who deposed…
1Opinion of the CourtEllsworth, J.
A new trial is asked for in this case on account of the admission of parol evidence, introduced to make more complete a certain written notice of the non-payment of a bill of exchange. The notice is recited verbatim in the motion, and no question is made but that it was duly transmitted and received.
The plaintiff, to guard against the contingency that the writing, by itself, might not be held sufficiently definite and accu-. rate to constitute notice as to the bill in suit, introduced further evidence to show that the defendant must, under the circumstances, have had sufficient knowledge that…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Mills v. Bank of United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1826
- Kilgore v. BulkleySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1841
- Bank of Rochester v. GouldNew York Supreme Court · 1832
- Reedy v. SeixasNew York Supreme Court · 1801