Dwight v. Emerson
Superior Court of New Hampshire
The holder of a promissory note cannot recover against an endorser, though it he negotiated long after due, unless he pro^e some demand on the maker, and notice to the endorser. What demand and notice is necessary in such cases ? qu. This was assumpsit on a promissory note from M. H. to the defendant, or order, dated February 25, 1811, and payable in one year.
Read the full summary
The holder of a promissory note cannot recover against an endorser, though it he negotiated long after due, unless he pro^e some demand on the maker, and notice to the endorser. What demand and notice is necessary in such cases ? qu. This was assumpsit on a promissory note from M. H. to the defendant, or order, dated February 25, 1811, and payable in one year. The action was against the defendant as endorser, and, at the trial here in May 1819, on the general issue, it was admitted, that the endorsement was not made lilt some months after the note became due ; and it further appeared, that no…
1Opinion of the CourtWoodbury, J.
The only question in this case is well settled in places, where the doctrine on promissory notes in other respects corresponds with that which prevails here.
It is unnecessary to recapitulate the arguments; but they are conclusive, that where a note, payable at a future time, is endorsed after it becomes due, it is still the duty of the holder to demand payment of the maker and give notice of his neglect to the endorser before a suit can be sustained against the latter. 10 Mass. Rep. 54, Sandford vs. Dilaway.—12 do. 450.—13 do. 138.—9 John. 121, Berry vs. Robertson.
Indie ' ft t.u! of .he…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Field v. NickersonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1816
- Eaton v. TaylorMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813