Utica Bank v. Van Gieson
New York Supreme Court
THIS viS^g^jtStS^^npsit, for money had and re-circuit, in September last, G. Stephens\ oiie of the defendants, left with the plaintiffs for collection, a promissory note of Hart & Alien, of Geneva, for 264 dollars and 36 cents, payable to the defendants or order, at the Bank of Geneva, and which fell due the 11th of November last.
Read the full summary
THIS viS^g^jtStS^^npsit, for money had and re-circuit, in September last, G. Stephens\ oiie of the defendants, left with the plaintiffs for collection, a promissory note of Hart & Alien, of Geneva, for 264 dollars and 36 cents, payable to the defendants or order, at the Bank of Geneva, and which fell due the 11th of November last. The defendants were the only endorsers; and S., wishing the note not to be protested, in case it was not paid, wrote, at the bottom of the note, “ not to be protested, if not paid, when due.’’ The plaintiffs not having made any memorandum of this direction of S.,…
1Opinion of the Court
Spencer, Ch. J.
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The objection taken to the plaintiff’s recovery is, that the defendants ought to have had notice that Hart & Alleys note payable at the Bank of Geneva, had not been paid, before this suit was instituted against them; and if so, then that notice through the post office was not sufficient. It is not pretended that the plaintiffs were guilty of any neglect in relation to that note; and the amount claimed was paid to the defendants, upon the supposition that Hart & Allen’s note had been paid at the Bank of Geneva; but it turns out that it was not…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Leather Manufacturers' Bank v. Merchants' BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Rutherford v. McIvorSupreme Court of Alabama · 1852
- Sharkey v. . MansfieldNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Sturgis v. PrestonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
- Andrews v. . the Artisans' BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1863
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.