Burkam v. Trowbridge
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne Circuit. The action was against Trowbridge as drawer and endorser, and the Collins Iron Company as acceptor, of a bill of exchange, and the question in the case was as to the sufficiency of the notice to Trowbridge, of which the following is a copy, and which correctly describes the bill.
Read the full summary
Error to Wayne Circuit. The action was against Trowbridge as drawer and endorser, and the Collins Iron Company as acceptor, of a bill of exchange, and the question in the case was as to the sufficiency of the notice to Trowbridge, of which the following is a copy, and which correctly describes the bill. “Cincinnati, October 15, 1858. Mr. C. A. Trowbridge: Take notice that a bill of exchange for §1304,22, drawn by you upon Collins Iron Company, Detroit, Mich., and accepted by said Co. in favor of yourself or order, dated Cincinnati, April 12, 1858, payable six months after date at the office…
1Opinion of the Court
Campbell J.:
This case presents but a single point, concerning the sufficiency of a notice of dishonor of an inland bill, under the general rules of law applicable to such paper, which is governed by the general law merchant in the absence of proof that the laws of Ohio have varied it.
The notice before us is dated on the day of the maturity of the paper, and states it was on that day, by the Notary who signed it, protested for non-payment after due demand and refusal of payment, and that the holders look to the defendant for payment. The bill is fully described, and the only question is…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Newberry v. Trowbridge & OwenMichigan Supreme Court · 1857
3Cited by9 opinions
- Talcott v. Pine GroveU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Michigan · 1872
- Bliss v. PaineMichigan Supreme Court · 1862
- Cromer v. PlattMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
- Union National Bank v. Williams Milling Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1898
- Cromer v. PlattMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.