Jarvis v. Garnett
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. The court, upon its own motion, gave the following instructions : 1. If the note sued on was executed by Lemuel H. Gar-nett as maker, and by Francis M. Ludlow, Noah M. Ludlow, John O’Fallon, Jr., Francis Smith, Ferdinand Kennett and John O’Fallon as endorsers, and at the maturity of said note it was placed in the hands of a notary public, who proceeded during business hours on that day. to make and did make diligent and faithful search…
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. The court, upon its own motion, gave the following instructions : 1. If the note sued on was executed by Lemuel H. Gar-nett as maker, and by Francis M. Ludlow, Noah M. Ludlow, John O’Fallon, Jr., Francis Smith, Ferdinand Kennett and John O’Fallon as endorsers, and at the maturity of said note it was placed in the hands of a notary public, who proceeded during business hours on that day. to make and did make diligent and faithful search and inquiry for the place of business and whereabouts of said maker among persons likely to know the same and not…
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, Judge
The decision of the case depends upon the single question of the sufficiency of the presentment and demand for payment. The protest states that the notary presented the note “at the place of business of L. H. Garnett and found it closed, and made diligent search and inquiry for L. H. Garnett and could not find him.” Under the statute, the notarial protest was evidence of a presentment and demand at the time and in the manner therein stated. The plaintiff, not venturing to rely upon the protest alone, produces the notary himself as a witness. He proves that he went to a store on the levee…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State ex rel. Rice v. CayceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885