Pierce v. Whitney
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
This was an action brought upon a note of hand, of this tenor. “ Boston, May 18, 1837. Six months from date, value received, I promise to pay to the order of Joseph Whitney, three thousand three hundred and seventy-eight dollars and sixty cents. Luther C. White”, and indorsed by the defendant.
Read the full summary
This was an action brought upon a note of hand, of this tenor. “ Boston, May 18, 1837. Six months from date, value received, I promise to pay to the order of Joseph Whitney, three thousand three hundred and seventy-eight dollars and sixty cents. Luther C. White”, and indorsed by the defendant. At the trial before Tenney, J. the plaintiff showed by Charles Hayward, a notary public, that at the maturity of said note he demanded payment of the same of the maker, at the Commonwealth Bank in Boston, where the same was lodged for collection, and notice of the dishonor of the same on that day was…
1Opinion of the CourtShepley, J.
The promissory note, on which this action was commenced, appears to have been made in the ordinary course of business. It does not appear to have been made or indorsed with any knowledge or expectation, that it would be discounted or deposited in a bank for collection. Whatever knowledge persons may have of the usages of banks, they can scarcely be expected to make all their negotiable paper with reference to such usages, especially when their residence is established at a great distance from them. In the case of Maine Bank v. Smith, 18 Maine, 99, the notes were made to be discounted at the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Parker v. . StroudNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
- Hobbs v. LudlowIndiana Supreme Court · 1928
- Applegarth v. AbbottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
- Ex parte HeidelbackDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1876