Hoffman v. Smith
New York Supreme Court
This was an action by the second endorsee against 'the marker of a promissory note, dated the 11th June, 1795, payable one year after date. The facts were briefly these: the note was originally payable to one Thomas Cooper, who endorsed it to Nicholas Hoffman. When it fell due, Smith, the maker, being unable to take it up, gave N. Hoffman a bill of exchange on William W. Burrows, of Philadelphia, for the amount, which, when paid, was to be in satisfaction.
Read the full summary
This was an action by the second endorsee against 'the marker of a promissory note, dated the 11th June, 1795, payable one year after date. The facts were briefly these: the note was originally payable to one Thomas Cooper, who endorsed it to Nicholas Hoffman. When it fell due, Smith, the maker, being unable to take it up, gave N. Hoffman a bill of exchange on William W. Burrows, of Philadelphia, for the amount, which, when paid, was to be in satisfaction. In the mean time, it was agreed by all parties, that the note should be left in the hands of N. Hoffman, Cooper consenting to remain…
1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.
*The notice to the drawer of non-payment, although in general requisite, was not necessary in this case, because the drawer had no effects in the hands of the drawee, and, therefore, could receive no injury from the want of it. The reason for notice failing, the necessity of giving it is superseded. The acceptance by the drawer made no alteration in the rule. Notice of nonpayment was not necessary because of no use to the drawer. Walwyn v. St. Quintin, 1 B. & P. 652. The proof of the *219want of funds was conclusive; it arose from the repeated confession of the defendant himself. Hor was there…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Foster v. HallMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1832
- Owens v. FrankWyoming Supreme Court · 1898
- Walker v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1885