King v. Hurley
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On exceptions. The only question raised in this case is whether or not the note in suit was sufficiently protested to hold the defendant as an indorser. The court gave judgment for the plaintiff and the defendant took exceptions. The case sufficiently appears in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtEmery, J.
This was an action by an indorsee against the indorser of a promissory note. At the maturity of the note, payment was duly demanded of the maker, and was refused, and notice thereof was seasonably sent to the defendant indorser. The defendant makes but two objections to the notice. First, that it did not state who were the other indorsers of the note. Second, that it misstated the amount of the note.
The defendant, however, does not show that he was in the least misled or confused by the omission, or by the mistake. On the contrary it clearly appears that he understood the notice to refer to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cayuga County Bank v. Warden & GriswoldNew York Court of Appeals · 1848
3Cited by2 opinions
- People v. MarshMichigan Supreme Court · 1900
- Herndon v. Salt Lake CityUtah Supreme Court · 1908