Jackson v. Newton
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
ERROR to the common pleas of Susquehanna county. Jackson, Deuel & Co. against Benjamin Newton. Case in as sumpsit. The plaintiff’s action was founded upon the following note and endorsement: “Dundaff, 16th Dec. 1834. “ Eight months after date, for value received, I promise to pay to the order of Benjamin Newton, seven hundred and forty-one dollars and eighty-three cents. (Signed) “ Geo. W. Heaey. “ Endorsed Benjamin Newton.”
Read the full summary
ERROR to the common pleas of Susquehanna county. Jackson, Deuel & Co. against Benjamin Newton. Case in as sumpsit. The plaintiff’s action was founded upon the following note and endorsement: “Dundaff, 16th Dec. 1834. “ Eight months after date, for value received, I promise to pay to the order of Benjamin Newton, seven hundred and forty-one dollars and eighty-three cents. (Signed) “ Geo. W. Heaey. “ Endorsed Benjamin Newton.” William Wurtz was then called as a witness, and testified in substance, that he went to Healy’s on the 15th of August 1835, and in the absence of Healy, demanded payment…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Sergeant, J.
The rule laid down by the court below, that the holder of a promissory note, in order to render the endorser liable,' *402must demand payment of the note from the maker, or in his absence, from his clerk or agent, on the last of the days of grace, and give due notice of the non-payment to the endorser, is the settled principle established in cases of bills of exchange and promissory notes, payable at a certain time after date. Long usage and established mercantile practice have incorporated this principle into the commercial code of this…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Leffingwell v. WhiteNew York Supreme Court · 1799
- Home National Bank v. NewtonAppellate Court of Illinois · 1881
- Ellis's Administrator v. Commercial BankMississippi Supreme Court · 1843