Duckert v. Von Lileinthal
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL PROM CIRCUIT COURT, MARQUETTE COUNTY. This was an action against the defendant, Herman Von Lileinthal, as indorser of a promissory, dated at “ Montello, Dec. 6, 1856/’ made by one John Donivon to William H. Catlin, for $200, and due in 30 months, and transferred to the defendant, and by him indorsed to the order of John Maxwell, who transferred the same to the plaintiffs, Duckert and Brockhaus. The complaint is in the usual form.
Read the full summary
APPEAL PROM CIRCUIT COURT, MARQUETTE COUNTY. This was an action against the defendant, Herman Von Lileinthal, as indorser of a promissory, dated at “ Montello, Dec. 6, 1856/’ made by one John Donivon to William H. Catlin, for $200, and due in 30 months, and transferred to the defendant, and by him indorsed to the order of John Maxwell, who transferred the same to the plaintiffs, Duckert and Brockhaus. The complaint is in the usual form. The answer denied any consideration for the indorsement, and averred that the note had not been duly presented for payment, or notice given. On the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Paine, J.
The judgment in this case must be reversed, for the reason that there was no proof of proper notice served upon the defendant as indorser. This court has decided, in Kimball vs. Bowen, 2 Wis., 524, that the certificate of the notary is no evidence of the contents of the *58notice; and that decision was followed in Smith vs. Hill, 6 Wis., 154. The statement of the defendant, that he received a notice, and came down to see if he was liable, throws no light upon this point. It shows no more than the receipt of the notice, which was already shown by the certificate. For this…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Sumner v. BowenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1853
- Smith v. HillWisconsin Supreme Court · 1858
3Cited by2 opinions
- Nelson v. GrondahlNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1904
- Witkowski v. MaxwellMississippi Supreme Court · 1891