Accola v. Giese

The note in question designates no time for payment. Therefore, under the law of negotiable instruments, sec. 116.11 (2), Stats., the note was payable on demand. Being payable upon demand, the note was due when the loan was made on December 1, 1926. Bruha v. La Crosse Plow Co. 218 Wis. 238, 260 N. W. 425; Barry v. Minahan, 127 Wis. 570, 107 N. W. 488.

The note contains the following provision:

“Sureties or endorsers hereby consent that time of payment may be extended without notice thereof.”

There was no extension of time either asked for or granted in the instant case. So far as the record…