Gillespie v. Hannahan
Court of Appeals of South Carolina
This was a summary process brought by the plaintiff as the indorsee against the defendant as the indorser of a promissory note, drawn by one Otis P. Prescott.
Read the full summary
This was a summary process brought by the plaintiff as the indorsee against the defendant as the indorser of a promissory note, drawn by one Otis P. Prescott. The evidence of demand and notice was contained in the protest of the notary, which stated that on the day the note became due the notary made diligent inquiry for Prescott, and ascertained that he had no residence in Charleston, and was supposed to have gone to Philadel» phia, and that he, on the same day, left a written notice of the non-payment of the note at the residence of the defendant, the indorser, (he not being at home.) Upon…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia per
Johnson, J.
This case has been argued upon the assumption, that at the time the defendant indorsed and transferred the note in question to the plaintiff, Prescott, the maker was resident in Charleston; and although this fact is not distinctly stated in the protest which seems to have been received as evidence of every thing it contained, I think from the terms used it may fairly bo inferred, and in the determination of the case I shall take it for granted.
The case of Halls, Kirkpatrick & Co. vs. Howell, (Harper Rep. 426,) is decisive that a written demand of Dayment from the maker of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Putnam v. SullivanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
- Bayley v. TaberMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810