Steele v. Russell
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error to the district court of Johnson county. The opinion states the case. insisted that a bank failing to demand payment of a note or bill left with it for collection, becomes liable to the owner for the amount; it is bound to demand payment of the makers, and to cause notice of non-payment to be given to all the indorsers.
Read the full summary
Error to the district court of Johnson county. The opinion states the case. insisted that a bank failing to demand payment of a note or bill left with it for collection, becomes liable to the owner for the amount; it is bound to demand payment of the makers, and to cause notice of non-payment to be given to all the indorsers. Sm-edes v. Utica flank, 20 Johns., 372. Fdbens v. Mercantile Bank, 23 Pick., 330. Ayrault v. The Pacific Bank, 47 ,N. Y., 570. Bank of Washington v. Triplett, 1 Pet., 25. McKinstev v. Bank of Utica, 9 Wend., 46. Tyson v. State Bank, 6 Blackf., 225. A man is virtually…
1Opinion of the Court
Lake, Ch. J.
The action in the court below was brought to recover the amount of a negotiable promissory note, executed by J. H. and A. W. Conlee to one John D. Hetzel, and by him duly indorsed, before maturity, to the plaintiffs. This note was afterwards delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendants, as bankers, for collection, and, in case of non-payment at maturity, to have the same duly protested so as to hold the indorser. These are facts set out at length in the petition, and concerning which there is no dispute. It is further averred in the petition, that the defendants wholly failed and…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Gregory v. HartleyNebraska Supreme Court · 1877
- Wood River Bank v. First National BankNebraska Supreme Court · 1893