Allwood v. Haseldon
Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Tried before Mr. Justice Gantt, at Marion, Spring* , 1831, This was an aetion of assumpsit upon a promissory note of James Pouncey, dated 4th March, 1828,and payable one day after date to fhe defendant, “ or bearer,” which was indorsed by the defendant to the plaintiff within a few days after it became due.
Read the full summary
Tried before Mr. Justice Gantt, at Marion, Spring* , 1831, This was an aetion of assumpsit upon a promissory note of James Pouncey, dated 4th March, 1828,and payable one day after date to fhe defendant, “ or bearer,” which was indorsed by the defendant to the plaintiff within a few days after it became due. The plaintiff immediately afterwards, to wit, on the 12th March 1828, brought suit against the maker, Pouncey, in Marlborough Disj trict, obtained judgment in due course, and issued a ft. fa,, which was returned nulla bona; after which this action was brought against the present defendant.…
1Opinion of the Court
Johnson J.
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The case of Brush v. Admors. of Reeves, 3 Johns. 439, is decisive of the first ground : and the rule there laid down is distinctly recognized in Eccles v. Ballard, 2 M’C. 388. If the payee of a note payable to himself, or bearer, indorse it, he may be sued as indorser, in the same manner as if it had been payable to him, or order.
In relation to notes indorsed before due, it is conceded, on all hands, that to charge the indorser, it is incumbent on the indorsee, with all convenient diligence, to demand payment of the maker, and, if payment is…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Brush v. Administrators of ReevesNew York Supreme Court · 1808