Gilchrist v. Donnell
Supreme Court of Missouri
Jipjpeal from Jefferson Circuit Court. I. When a note is made payable at a particular place, presentment at that place for payment is sufficient. (Glasgow vs. Pratte, 8 Mo., 336; Lawrence vs. Dobyns, 30 Mo., 196.) II. The notary used due diligence. (Sto.
Read the full summary
Jipjpeal from Jefferson Circuit Court. I. When a note is made payable at a particular place, presentment at that place for payment is sufficient. (Glasgow vs. Pratte, 8 Mo., 336; Lawrence vs. Dobyns, 30 Mo., 196.) II. The notary used due diligence. (Sto. Promi Notes, (4th Ed.,) 437, § 344.) The notary swears in his depositiori, that he first inquired at the Central Savings Bank, the holder of the note, of the cashier thereof, as to the places of residence or business of respondents, and could not ascertain them ; that thereupon, he inquired at the place of business of a firm, which indorsed…
1Opinion of the CourtAdams, Judge
This was an action on a negotiable promissory note by the plaintiff as indorsee, against the defendants as prior indorsers. The note was payable at the Central Savings Bank of St. Louis, Missouri, and was duly protested at maturity. The defense relied on, and the only issue tried was, that the defendants wore not duly served with notice of demand and protest. The evidence conduced to show, that they resided in Jefferson County. The notary, who protested the note, testified, that he did not know where the defendants resided; that on the day of the protest, he inquired of the bank officers and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Barret v. EvansSupreme Court of Missouri · 1859
3Cited by5 opinions
- Rolla State Bank v. PezoldtMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- Bost v. Rexine Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1925
- Bank of Commerce v. ChambersMissouri Court of Appeals · 1883
- Wolf v. BurgessSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Riggs v. HatchU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1883