Moore v. Hardcastle
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Caroline county. Assumpsit brought by the appellant, as holder, against the appellee, as endorser, of a promissory note for §450, payable at the Farmers Bank, at Easton. Plea, non assumpsit. Exception.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Caroline county. Assumpsit brought by the appellant, as holder, against the appellee, as endorser, of a promissory note for §450, payable at the Farmers Bank, at Easton. Plea, non assumpsit. Exception. The plaintiff offered in evidence the note sued on, which was dated “Kinnes Landing, Md., Sept. 24th, 1851,” having proved the handwriting of the maker and endorser, and also the protest made at Easton, and notice directed to the defendant at “Denton, Caroline county.” The notary who protested the note was then called to the stand, and proved that he so…
1Opinion of the CourtTuck, J.
The only question before us, on this appeal, is, whether reasonable diligence was used by the notary public, in protesting the note on which this suit was instituted, to charge the appellee as endorser?
The law is settled, that demand and notice are conditions precedent to the holder’s right to recover on a promissory note, and that the endorser is entitled to strict notice; by which is meant, not that the party charged must actually receive such notice, but that reasonable diligence shall be employed, and reasonable efforts made, to give it. The general rule is, that where the endorser lives…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Lambert v. GhiselinSupreme Court of the United States · 1850
- Bell v. Hagerstown BankCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1848
- Crowley v. BarryCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1846
- Sasscer v. WhitelyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1856
3Cited by3 opinions
- Staylor v. BallCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1866
- Whitridge v. RiderCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1865
- Riggs v. HatchU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1883