Hall v. Freeman
Supreme Court of South Carolina
This was an action of assumpsit, brought against the defendant, as the endorser of a note drawn by Popoon. *Mr. Montague, a witness, for the plaintiff, said that he called, at the request of the plaintiff, upon the defendant, on the day after the note *• became payable, and requested payment; that the defendant then promised to pay it, and proposed to give his own note for a part of the amount; at the same time observing to the witness, that he know the drawer, Pepoon, was…
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, brought against the defendant, as the endorser of a note drawn by Popoon. *Mr. Montague, a witness, for the plaintiff, said that he called, at the request of the plaintiff, upon the defendant, on the day after the note *• became payable, and requested payment; that the defendant then promised to pay it, and proposed to give his own note for a part of the amount; at the same time observing to the witness, that he know the drawer, Pepoon, was insolvent. The witness, on a subsequent part of the same day, again called upon the defendant, upon the same subject,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
HUGER, J.
In Hopley v. Dufresne, 15 East. 215, a presentation was not only not proved, but had not been legally made, and yet it was held, that in an action against the endorser, on a subsequent promise to pay, it ought to be left to the jury to determine, whether the defendant had notice at the time of his subsequeut promise, that there had been no due presentation. And in Lundie v. Robertson, 1 East. 231, when the en-dorsee, three months after the bill was due, demanded *payment of the endorser, who said he had not had regular notice, but L would pay…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Kennon v. M'ReaSupreme Court of Alabama · 1838