Windham Bank v. Norton, Converse & Co.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the Wind-ham Bank, as holders of a bill of exchange, against the defendants, as indorsers. The bill of exchange referred to was drawn by George Hobart, of Norwich, in this state, upon Mansfield, Hall & Stone, of Philadelphia, and by them accepted, for $417.26 ; dated January 31, 1849, and payable four months after date, to the order of the defendants.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the Wind-ham Bank, as holders of a bill of exchange, against the defendants, as indorsers. The bill of exchange referred to was drawn by George Hobart, of Norwich, in this state, upon Mansfield, Hall & Stone, of Philadelphia, and by them accepted, for $417.26 ; dated January 31, 1849, and payable four months after date, to the order of the defendants. The declaration was in the common form, and contained the usual averments of a due presentment of the bill in question, and notice of its non-payment. The defendants pleaded the general issue, and the…
1Opinion of the CourtStorrs, J.
The defendants first insist, that the averments in this declaration, of a due presentment of the draft in question and notice of its non-payment, must be strictly proved, and that they are not sustained, by proof of the facts set up by the plaintiffs, by way of excuse. Whatever may be the course of authorities elsewhere, it is well settled here, that those allegations are supported by evidence of matter of excuse, or a waiver of demand and notice. Norton v. Lewis, 2 Conn. R., 479, and Camp v. Bates, 11 id., 487, are decisive on this point.
The other and more important question in this case is,…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Wickersham v. JohnstonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Levy v. Peabody Insurance Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1877
- Consolidated Aluminum Corp. v. Bank of VirginiaDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1982
- Second Nat. Bank of Toledo v. M. Samuel & Sons, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1926
- Pier v. HeinrichshoffenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.