New York Belting & Packing Co. v. Ela
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, on a note signed by the Union Printing Company,, payable in four months from date to the defendant or order, and by him indorsed to the plaintiffs. The defence was, that the defendant was not notified of the dishonor of the note. Facts found by the court. The makers were citizens of New York, and the note was dated at New York city. When due it was presented for payment, and payment being refused, was protested.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, on a note signed by the Union Printing Company,, payable in four months from date to the defendant or order, and by him indorsed to the plaintiffs. The defence was, that the defendant was not notified of the dishonor of the note. Facts found by the court. The makers were citizens of New York, and the note was dated at New York city. When due it was presented for payment, and payment being refused, was protested. Notice to the defendant was sent by mail directed to him at New York city, and a duplicate notice by mail directed to the defendant in the care of the makers at New York…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
The defence is the want of notice of the dishonor of the note. The indorser’s residence and business address were unknown, and could not by the exercise of ordinary and reasonable diligence be discovered. The holder of a dishonored note is bound to exercise ordinary and reasonable diligence in ascertaining the residence and business address of the indorser, and in forwarding notice to him accordingly. Brighton Bank v. Philbrick, 40 N. H. 506; Bigelow on Bills and Notes 339, 341; Stoi’y on Bills, s. 299. What is due and reasonable diligence is a mixed question of law and fact, depending upon…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- President of the Bank of Alexandria v. SwannSupreme Court of the United States · 1835
- Bank of Utica v. PhillipsNew York Supreme Court · 1829
- Carroll v. . UptonNew York Court of Appeals · 1850
- Saco National Bank v. SanbornSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1871
- Ward v. PerrinNew York Supreme Court · 1869