Duryee v. Dennison
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of assumpsit, by the first endorsee of a promissory note against the first endorsor. The note was dated the ?th July, 180?, and made by Burton Hammond, whereby he promised to- pay the defendant or order, 909 dollars and SO cents, twelve months after the date of the note, &c.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit, by the first endorsee of a promissory note against the first endorsor. The note was dated the ?th July, 180?, and made by Burton Hammond, whereby he promised to- pay the defendant or order, 909 dollars and SO cents, twelve months after the date of the note, &c. The declaration was in the usual form, and stated the presentment of the note to the .maker, and demand and refusal of payment on the 10th July, 1808, and added, “ of all which premises the said defendant, afterwards, to wit, on the same day and year last aforesaid, had notice.” The defendant pleaded…
1Opinion of the Court
Kent, Ch. J.
delivered the opinion of the court. We are of opinion that the testimony of Aikin, as given at the trial, was sufficient to support the verdict. The rule is now settled, that if an endorsor has not had regular notice of non-payment by the drawer; yet if with knowledge of that fact, he makes a subsequent promise to pay, it is a waiver of the want of due notice, and assumpsit will lie. (2 Term Rep. 713. Stra. 1246. 6 East, 16. Hopes v. Alder, note. 7 East, 231. 236, note. Whitaker v. Morris, Esp. Dig. 58. Chitty, 102. Bayley on Bills, 78. Anson and Bailey, Buller’s N. P. 276.…
2Cited by18 opinions
- Corley v. New York & Harlem RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
- Eagan v. Ætna Fire & Marine InsuranceWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1877
- Sherer v. Easton BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1859
- Hopcraft v. KittredgeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894
- Beard v. SimmonsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1850
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.