Adams v. Rutherford
Oregon Supreme Court
Marion County. Plaintiff appeals. As against a maker of a promissory note or acceptor of a bill of exchange payable at a specific place, it is not necessary for the holder thereof to make demand of payment at such place, as a condition precedent to bringing an action thereon; nor to aver such demand in the complaint, or prove it on the trial. (Moak’s Van Sant. PI.,. 3d ed., 321; Adams v. Hackensack Imp. .Com., 43 Am.
Read the full summary
Marion County. Plaintiff appeals. As against a maker of a promissory note or acceptor of a bill of exchange payable at a specific place, it is not necessary for the holder thereof to make demand of payment at such place, as a condition precedent to bringing an action thereon; nor to aver such demand in the complaint, or prove it on the trial. (Moak’s Van Sant. PI.,. 3d ed., 321; Adams v. Hackensack Imp. .Com., 43 Am. Rep... 407. The liability of the maker of a note payable at a. particular place, or of the acceptor of a bill so payable, is-not a conditional liability depending upon…
1ConcurrenceLord, J.
In concurring in the opinion of my associate for the affirmance of the decree in this suit, I have deemed the questions involved of such importance to the business interests of the community as *86to require a statement of the grounds upon which my opinion is founded. It is an elementary principle that a court of equity has no power to make or alter the contracts of parties; but ordinarily, its duties are, when invoked, to enforce them as made. Nor is the mere fact that the bargain is hard, or even unreasonable, sufficient of itself to induce the court to interfere; but there musí be connected…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Noyes v. ClarkNew York Court of Chancery · 1838
- Bennett v. . StevensonNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Stanclift v. NortonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1873
- Leonard v. TylerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
- Cassidy v. CatonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1877
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.