Union Bank v. Middlebrook
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Assumpsit against the defendant as indorser of two promissory notes, with the common counts, tried in the superior court (Park, J.,') on the general issue, with notice that the execution and delivery of the notes, by any of the alleged parties thereto, was denied.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit against the defendant as indorser of two promissory notes, with the common counts, tried in the superior court (Park, J.,') on the general issue, with notice that the execution and delivery of the notes, by any of the alleged parties thereto, was denied. On the trial the plaintiffs produced in support of their claim two notes, one of which was of the following tenor : $2,700. Albany, August 13th, 1860. One month after date I promise to pay to the order of H. O. Ballou, twenty-seven hundred dollars, at the Union Bank, value received. O. S. Middlebrook. (Indorsed,) H. C. Ballou. E. B.…
1Opinion of the CourtDutton, J.
The plaintiff in this case brought an action against the defendant as indorser of two negotiable promissory notes claimed to have been drawn by O. S. Middlebrook, a brother of the defendant, one for 2,500 dollars and. the other for 2,700 dollars, payable at the Union Bank, Albany, N. T.
On the trial to .the jury the plaintiff offered in evidence, to *98prove that the notes had been duly protested and notice given to the defendant, a notarial protest, in the form substantially in which such documents are usually drawn, stating not only \ that the note was protested but that notices were sent to…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Patrick v. J. B. Ham Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1921
- Montgomery v. CrossthwaitSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
- Bunnell v. Berlin Iron Bridge Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1895
- Saunders v. New England Collapsible Tube Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1920
- C. & C. Electric Motor Co. v. D. Frisbie & Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1895
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.