Ball v. Dennison
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
This was an action brought by the indorsee against the indorser of a promissory note for $5000, made by Samuel Emory, on the 2Gth of December 1795, and payable 65 days after sight.
Read the full summary
This was an action brought by the indorsee against the indorser of a promissory note for $5000, made by Samuel Emory, on the 2Gth of December 1795, and payable 65 days after sight. The maker failing to pay the note, it was regularly protested, on the 3d of March 1796 ; and the only question agitated upon the trial, was, whether reasonable notice of the non-payment was given to the indorser, or due diligence employed to give it ? The material facts were these : Emory and Dennison had purchased from the managers of the Schuylkill canal lottery, a number of tickets, for which a note was given to…
1Opinion of the Court
Shippen, Justice, (a)
— The cause depends upon one point, which is a matter of fact. The general law is, that when a promissory note is dishonored by the maker, the indorser becomes immediately liable; and the holder is entitled to recover the amount from him, unless he is discharged by the áct of the holder, either in giving further time or credit to the maker; or in neglecting to give the indorser due notice of the non-payment. This notice is indispensable: so much so, that it is immaterial, whether the maker becomes insolvent before the notice, or not. Still, however, what constitutes due…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Steinmetz v. CurreySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1788
3Cited by12 opinions
- Adan Yusuf Ibrahim v. Drake, et al.District Court, W.D. Washington · 2025
- Brown 281275 v. ThornellDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2025
- Fletcher v. ColemanDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2024
- Gibson v. RyanDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2019
- Grange v. Airvoice Wireless LLCDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2024
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.