Big Sandy National Bank v. Chilton
West Virginia Supreme Court
cited 3 Randolph Com. Paper 268, § 1240; 5 Mason (IT. S. Cir. Ct. Rpt.) 366; 17 Wis. 157; 48 Mo. 66; 3 Dana (Ky.) 126; 3 Mackey 351; 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 670; 34 N. Y. 128; 1 Parsons on Notes & Bills 514, 578; 28 Ver.'316; 6 Mass. 316; 7 East 385; 7 Pa.
Read the full summary
cited 3 Randolph Com. Paper 268, § 1240; 5 Mason (IT. S. Cir. Ct. Rpt.) 366; 17 Wis. 157; 48 Mo. 66; 3 Dana (Ky.) 126; 3 Mackey 351; 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 670; 34 N. Y. 128; 1 Parsons on Notes & Bills 514, 578; 28 Ver.'316; 6 Mass. 316; 7 East 385; 7 Pa. St. 178. Notice of protest must be personal, and not by mail, unless proven to have been received in due time, when the indorser lives in the same city or town where the note is payable. — 2 Daniel on Nego., Ins., 1005, 1038, 1039; 6 How. 248; 2 Peters 96; Story on Bills, § 312; 15 G-ratt. 501; 29 W. Va. 528; Parsons on Notes and Bills 511; 1 Am.…
1Opinion
On .Rehearing.
This cause was submitted at the January term, 1894, and the foregoing opinion was handed down at the spring special term, 1894, and a shearing was then awarded, since which time no additional brief or argument has been submitted by the defendants in error. A brief, however, has been filed by the plaintiff in error; and although I have carefully gone over the case and the authorities cited, and to which I have had access, I see no cause to alter my opinion. The true rule as it appears to me is stated in Bank v. Taylor, 7 Bosw. 466, where it is held that “there is no rule…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Peabody Ins. v. Wilson & BeasleyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1887
- Bowling v. HarrisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1848
- West River Bank v. TaylorNew York Court of Appeals · 1865
- Boyd's adm'r v. City Savings BankSupreme Court of Virginia · 1860
- West River Bank v. TaylorThe Superior Court of New York City · 1860