Trimble v. Thorne
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of assumpsit, on a promissory note, made by James Cunningham, dated the 20th of October, 1813, for 800 dollars, payable, with interest, six months after date, at the bank of Orange county, to the defendant, who endorsed it to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit, on a promissory note, made by James Cunningham, dated the 20th of October, 1813, for 800 dollars, payable, with interest, six months after date, at the bank of Orange county, to the defendant, who endorsed it to the plaintiff. The cause was tried before Mr. J. Spencer, at the Orange circuit, in September, 1817. The notice of non-payment to the defendant, (which was merely by putting a letter in the post-office, directed to the defendant, when be resided in the same town in which the bank was situated,) being insufficient, one of the plaintiff’s attorneys…
1Opinion of the Court
Spencer, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the Court.
The several cases of Duryee v. Denniston, Miller v. Hackley, (5 Johns. Rep. 248. 382.) Crain v. Colwell, (8 Johns. Rep. 384.) and Agan & M‘Manus, (11 Johns. Rep. 180.) decide, that if an endorser of a bill or note, who has not had regular notice of non-payment, by the acceptor or maker, with full knowledge of that fact, makes a subsequent promise to pay, it is a waiver of the want of notice, and he is liable ; but it must be shown by the plaintiff, affirmatively and clearly, that the defendant knew, when he made the subsequent promise, that…
2Cited by28 opinions
- Shutts v. . FingarNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
- Maddox v. DuncanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1898
- Moorman v. WoodIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
- Sherer v. Easton BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1859
- Bank of Conway v. StaryNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1924
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.