Big Sandy National Bank v. Chilton
West Virginia Supreme Court
cited 3 Randolph Com. Paper 268, § 1240; 5 Mason (IT. S. Cir. Ct. Rpt.) 366; 17 Wis. 157; 48 Mo. 66; 3 Dana (Ky.) 126; 3 Mackey 351; 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 670; 34 N. Y. 128; 1 Parsons on Notes & Bills 514, 578; 28 Ver.'316; 6 Mass. 316; 7 East 385; 7 Pa.
Read the full summary
cited 3 Randolph Com. Paper 268, § 1240; 5 Mason (IT. S. Cir. Ct. Rpt.) 366; 17 Wis. 157; 48 Mo. 66; 3 Dana (Ky.) 126; 3 Mackey 351; 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 670; 34 N. Y. 128; 1 Parsons on Notes & Bills 514, 578; 28 Ver.'316; 6 Mass. 316; 7 East 385; 7 Pa. St. 178. Notice of protest must be personal, and not by mail, unless proven to have been received in due time, when the indorser lives in the same city or town where the note is payable. — 2 Daniel on Nego., Ins., 1005, 1038, 1039; 6 How. 248; 2 Peters 96; Story on Bills, § 312; 15 G-ratt. 501; 29 W. Va. 528; Parsons on Notes and Bills 511; 1 Am.…
1Opinion of the Court
English, J udge :
On the 29th day of July, 1892, the Big Sandy National Bank brought an action of assumpsit in the Circuit Court of Cabell county against W. E. Chilton, M. B. Mullins, Thomas H. Harvey, Z. T. Vinson, J. C. Williamson, and W. H. Crum, on a certain negotiable note made by W. E. Chilton, dated January 13, 1891, whereby, three months after date, without grace, he promised to pay to order of M. B. Mullins, two thousand dollars, payable at the First National Bank of Huntington, value received, with interest from date, which note was indorsed by M. B. Mullins, Thomas H. Harvey, Z. T.…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Bank of Columbia Ex Rel. Bank of United States v. LawrenceSupreme Court of the United States · 1828
- Peabody Ins. v. Wilson & BeasleyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1887
- Bowling v. HarrisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1848
- Mead v. EngsNew York Supreme Court · 1826
- Central Bank of Wisconsin v. St. JohnWisconsin Supreme Court · 1863
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Archer v. WardSupreme Court of Virginia · 1853