Sather v. Rogers
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Dubuque City Court. To establish the liability of Rogers as endorser of a promissory note, plaintiff introduced tbe note and tbe certificate of a notary to tbe effect that it bad been duly presented and was protested for non-payment. This being all tbe evidence, tbe defendant objected to its sufficiency, upon tbe ground that there was no proof of notice of the dishonor to tbe in-dorser. The objection was overruled and defendant appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtWeight, C. J.
Appellees concede that notice of the dishonor was necessary in order to bind tbe indorser. Th;y claim that the notary’s certificate was prima facie evidence of such notice, as well as tbe presentment for payment. And for this position they rely upon section 2414 of tbe Code, which provides that, “the usual protest by a notary public, without proof of his signature or notarial seal, is evidence of the dishonor and notice of a bill of exchange or promissory note.”
The argument is that the usual protest of a notary, does not include the element of notice, but only of the presentation of the paper…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Jones v. BerryhillSupreme Court of Iowa · 1868
- State v. ReidelSupreme Court of Iowa · 1868