Bank of Rochester v. Gould
New York Supreme Court
This was an action of assumpsit against the defendant, as the endorser of a promissory note made to him by George Fisher, for #375, bearing date 1st June, 1828, payable with inter? est in two years.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit against the defendant, as the endorser of a promissory note made to him by George Fisher, for #375, bearing date 1st June, 1828, payable with inter? est in two years. On the 4th June, 1830, payment was demanded of the drawer, the note pz-otested, and notice given to the endorser in these words: “ Take notice, that George Fisher’s note for four hundred andfifty-seven dollars, and endorsed by you, was this evening protested for non-payment, and the holders look to you for the payment thereof.” The notary who protested the note and gave the notice, testified that…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Nelson, J.
Within the principle of the cases of 2 Johns. C. 337, and 3 Wendell, 456, the plaintiffs are entitled to retain the verdict. The notice was sufficient to put the defendant upon inquiry, and the testimony well warranted the jury in coming to the conclusion that he was not misled by the mis-description of the note. The fact that there was no other note of Fisher’s endorsed by the defendant in the bank, together with his admission to the cashier, were conclusive that the defendant could not have been misled by the notice, and that it had fully answered its object.
New trial…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Coddington v. DavisNew York Supreme Court · 1846
- Downer v. RemerNew York Supreme Court · 1839
- Cook v. LitchfieldThe Superior Court of New York City · 1857
- Cook v. LitchfieldThe Superior Court of New York City · 1857
- Gilbert v. DennisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1842
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.