Ward v. Perrin
New York Supreme Court
MOTION by the defendant for a.new trial. The action is on a promissory note against the defendant as indorser. The defense was that the indorser was never properly charged. The note is dated December 26, 1865, at four months. At the time when the note was made, and until the 23d or 24th of February, 1866, the defendant resided and did business in Rochester. About that time he removed his place of residence to Bergen, Genesee county, where he received his mail matter.
Read the full summary
MOTION by the defendant for a.new trial. The action is on a promissory note against the defendant as indorser. The defense was that the indorser was never properly charged. The note is dated December 26, 1865, at four months. At the time when the note was made, and until the 23d or 24th of February, 1866, the defendant resided and did business in Rochester. About that time he removed his place of residence to Bergen, Genesee county, where he received his mail matter. The defendant was a man having no family. Payment of the note was demanded and refused. Notice of the demand and non-payment"…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
E. Darwin Smith, J.
When the promissory note upon which this action was brought was made, the maker and indorser both resided in Rochester, and the note was dated at that place and discounted at. the plaintiffs’ bank, which was also kept in Rochester, where the plaintiffs also resided.
*98[Monroe General Term, March 1, 1869.
The plaintiffs had the right, when the note matured, to assume that the defendant still resided in Eochester, and to act accordingly in taking the requisite steps to charge him as indorser; unless they knew that in the meantime he had changed his residence. The…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Requa v. . CollinsNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- New York Belting & Packing Co. v. ElaSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1881
- Riggs v. HatchU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1883