Holtz v. Boppe
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from the general term of the Supreme Court, in the first district, where a judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff, upon the report of a referee, had been affirmed. This was an action by Christian F. Holtz against John A. Boppe, as indorser of a promissory note made by Hartman & Ilch, payable six months after date. The only question was, whether there had been a due presentment and demand of payment upon the makers, so as to charge the defendant.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the general term of the Supreme Court, in the first district, where a judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff, upon the report of a referee, had been affirmed. This was an action by Christian F. Holtz against John A. Boppe, as indorser of a promissory note made by Hartman & Ilch, payable six months after date. The only question was, whether there had been a due presentment and demand of payment upon the makers, so as to charge the defendant. The case was tried before a referee who, upon this point, found the following state of facts: Prior to the 26th of October 1860, the…
1Opinion of the CourtBacon, J.
The only question presented by this case is, whether the defendant was properly charged as indorser of the note in suit, by a due presentment and demand of payment of the same of the makers. The note was made by Hartman & Ilch, who were partners in business, and was payable six months after date, but specifying no place of payment. The demand of payment was, consequently, required to be made of the makers, personally, or at their dwelling-place or place of business. (Story on Bills of Exchange, § 362; Taylor v. Snyder, 3 Denio 145.)
On the subject of the demand, the referee finds the following…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Taylor v. SnyderNew York Supreme Court · 1846
- Packard v. LyonThe Superior Court of New York City · 1855