Routh v. Robertson
Mississippi Supreme Court
In error from the circuit court of Adams county; Hon. C. C. Cage, judge. The Commercial Bank of Natchez, on the 11th of December, 1843, sued John Routh and Elias Ogden, administrators, and Mary M. Ellis, administratrix of Thomas G. Ellis, deceased, upon their intestate’s indorsement upon a bill of exchange drawn by Francis Routh on W. W. Swain & Co. for five thousand dollars, dated November 26, 1836, and due four months after date, on the 29th day of March, 1837. On the…
Read the full summary
In error from the circuit court of Adams county; Hon. C. C. Cage, judge. The Commercial Bank of Natchez, on the 11th of December, 1843, sued John Routh and Elias Ogden, administrators, and Mary M. Ellis, administratrix of Thomas G. Ellis, deceased, upon their intestate’s indorsement upon a bill of exchange drawn by Francis Routh on W. W. Swain & Co. for five thousand dollars, dated November 26, 1836, and due four months after date, on the 29th day of March, 1837. On the trial, after proof of due demand and protest, the plaintiff below read the following notice, as being the only notice given…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Sharkey
The only question in this case is, Was the notice sufficient to charge the indorser of a bill of exchange 1 The bill was dated the 26th of November, 1836, and was payable four months after date. It matured, therefore, on the 29th of March, and on that day was protested. But the notice of protest bears date the 26th of March, and notifies the indorser that on that day the bill had been protested for non-payment, and that the holder looked to him for payment.
To my mind the conclusion seems irresistible, that this notice was insufficient to charge the.indorser.
' The first duty of the holder of a…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Mills v. Bank of United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1826
- Ontario Bank v. PetrieNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Reedy v. SeixasNew York Supreme Court · 1801