Adams v. Rutherford
Oregon Supreme Court
Marion County. Plaintiff appeals. As against a maker of a promissory note or acceptor of a bill of exchange payable at a specific place, it is not necessary for the holder thereof to make demand of payment at such place, as a condition precedent to bringing an action thereon; nor to aver such demand in the complaint, or prove it on the trial. (Moak’s Van Sant. PI.,. 3d ed., 321; Adams v. Hackensack Imp. .Com., 43 Am.
Read the full summary
Marion County. Plaintiff appeals. As against a maker of a promissory note or acceptor of a bill of exchange payable at a specific place, it is not necessary for the holder thereof to make demand of payment at such place, as a condition precedent to bringing an action thereon; nor to aver such demand in the complaint, or prove it on the trial. (Moak’s Van Sant. PI.,. 3d ed., 321; Adams v. Hackensack Imp. .Com., 43 Am. Rep... 407. The liability of the maker of a note payable at a. particular place, or of the acceptor of a bill so payable, is-not a conditional liability depending upon…
1Opinion of the CourtThayer, J.
This appeal is from a decree of the Circuit Court for the county of Marion, rendered in a suit. *80brought by the appellant against the respondents to foreclose a mortgage. It appears that on the twenty-third day of August, 1883, the respondent R. H. Rutherford executed to one Jesse Adams a promissory note, of which the following is a copy:
“On or before five years after date, without grace, I promise to pay to the order of Jesse H. Adams, at Salem, Oregon, twenty-three ($2,300) hundred dollars in gold coin of the United States of America, of the present standard value, with interest thereon in…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Console v. TorchinskySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1922
- Perkins v. SwainIdaho Supreme Court · 1922
- Harrison v. BealsOregon Supreme Court · 1924
- McCue v. BradburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- Johnson v. GoreMississippi Supreme Court · 1955
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.