J. W. Lathrop & Co. v. Mitchell
Supreme Court of Georgia
Secondary evidence. Production of paper. Before Judge Clark. Sumter Superior Court. October Term, 1872. • J. W. Lathrop & Company brought complaint against Beverly C. Mitchell, as indorser upon a promissory note made by James G. M. Ball, on January 7th, 1860, due on December 25th next thereafter, payable to B. C. Mitchell or bearer, for $348 00. The defendant pleaded that in the year. 1866 he served F. M. Coker, the agent of plaintiffs, and who then had the note sned on in…
Read the full summary
Secondary evidence. Production of paper. Before Judge Clark. Sumter Superior Court. October Term, 1872. • J. W. Lathrop & Company brought complaint against Beverly C. Mitchell, as indorser upon a promissory note made by James G. M. Ball, on January 7th, 1860, due on December 25th next thereafter, payable to B. C. Mitchell or bearer, for $348 00. The defendant pleaded that in the year. 1866 he served F. M. Coker, the agent of plaintiffs, and who then had the note sned on in his hands for collection, with a written notice to proceed to collect said note out of the principal within three months…
1Opinion of the Court
McCay, Judge.
We do not go into the evidence educed on the trial on either side, in this case. The date of the notice and its contents were material, and it was the right of the plaintiff to insist that the original should be produced. Was the foundation laid for the parol proof? If the notice was given to Coker, the agent, the presumption is that he transmitted it to the principal, and search for it now by Coker, or inquiry of him, does not exhaust the duty to search further. Notice to the plaintiff would be the proper mode. If notice to sue was sent him by Mitchell, or by Coker, it is a fair…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Crawford v. HodgeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1888