Peters v. Hobbs
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Error to Phillips Circuit Court. Hon. James M. Hanks, Circuit Judge. The liability of the indorser in this case depends on two things, having been rightly done — demand of payment, and notice of non-payment. Holder must use due diligence, for the indorser is only responsible after default by the maker. 3 John.
Read the full summary
Error to Phillips Circuit Court. Hon. James M. Hanks, Circuit Judge. The liability of the indorser in this case depends on two things, having been rightly done — demand of payment, and notice of non-payment. Holder must use due diligence, for the indorser is only responsible after default by the maker. 3 John. Cas., 76; 3 Caine, §44- Merely because the bank — the place where the note was payable' — had removed, with its assets, was no -reason why the demand should not have been made long before it was, and notice of non-payment thereupon given. Demand should be made at the time note is due ;…
1Opinion of the Court
Walker, G J.
Ilobbs brought his action of assumpsit against John 33. Cobb, maker, and George 33. Peters, payee and indorsor of a promissory note, payable at the branch bank of the Planters’ 33ank, at Memphis, Tennessee, on the 16th day of January, 1863. The note was indorsed “George 33. Peters, Walnut 33end, Ark.” A demurrer was sustained to the first count in the declaration, and upon the second count issue was taken upon the plea of non-assumpsit. A discontinuance was entered as to Cobb, the maker, who had not been served with process, and upon a trial before a jury, a verdict and judgment…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- New Orleans v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1836
- Jordan v. GarnettSupreme Court of Alabama · 1842
- Laughlin v. MarshallIllinois Supreme Court · 1857
- Fulford v. Johnson, Hendon & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1849
3Cited by1 opinion
- Riggs v. HatchU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1883