Barker v. Parker
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Assumpsit against the defendant as indorser of a promissory note, made payable to him or his order, in one year, by Joseph Parker as principal, and John Boylin as surety, dated November 13, 1824. The declaration alleged a presentment to the makers for payment, on the 12th, 13th, and 15th of November, 1825, and due notice to the defendant. The 13th was Sunday.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit against the defendant as indorser of a promissory note, made payable to him or his order, in one year, by Joseph Parker as principal, and John Boylin as surety, dated November 13, 1824. The declaration alleged a presentment to the makers for payment, on the 12th, 13th, and 15th of November, 1825, and due notice to the defendant. The 13th was Sunday. At the trial before Putnam J. it was proved, that the makers became insolvent before the maturity of the note, and that Boylin absconded before that time. The defendant knew of the insolvency of the makers, before the note became due,…
1Opinion of the Court
Parker C. J.
drew up the opinion of the Court. This note, having been made in 1824, was not entitled to grace,1 the statute allowing grace ón promissory notes not having passed until 1825. (See Revised Stat. c. 33, § 5.) It became due, therefore, on the 13th of November, 1825, and should have been demanded on the 12th, as the day of payment according to the note was Sunday.2 As however the holder *82might wait for payment to be made through the day, and the promisor lived twenty miles distant, a demand on Monday the 14th might in this case have been seasonable.1 The fact that Monday was a very…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Freeman v. BoyntonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1811
- Gurly v. Gettysburg BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1821