McKenney v. Whipple
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Exceptions from the Western District Court, Whitman J. presiding. Assumpsit on a note of which a copy follows. “ Standish, May 10, 1841. “ On demand I promise to pay Albert M. McKenney, or order, ten dollars, with interest, at my residence at Standish, value received. Carlisle Whipple.”
Read the full summary
Exceptions from the Western District Court, Whitman J. presiding. Assumpsit on a note of which a copy follows. “ Standish, May 10, 1841. “ On demand I promise to pay Albert M. McKenney, or order, ten dollars, with interest, at my residence at Standish, value received. Carlisle Whipple.” The plaintiff offered the note in- evidence, but had not alleged in his declaration, and did not offer to prove a demand of payment at the maker’s residence before the commencement of the suit. The presiding Judge ruled, that as the note was made payable at the residence of the maker, a demand was necessary…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was by
Tenney J.
—The necessity of an averment in a wwit, of a demand on the maker of a noté, or on the acceptor of a bill, and proof in its support, when the same are payable at a certain time and place, has undergone at different times in England a very full, and elaborate discussion by their most distinguished Judges and other jurists. There have been various and conflicting decisions, sometimes founded upon distinctions, *100apparently without any solid basis. At one time, the opinions of the Court of King’s Bench and the Common Pleas on this subject were utterly…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Haxton v. BishopNew York Supreme Court · 1829
- Caldwell v. CassidyNew York Supreme Court · 1828
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hardin v. SweeneyWashington Supreme Court · 1896
- Barrie v. McDenegleCircuit Court of the 10th Circuit of Michigan · 1869
- Ringo v. BiscoeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1853