Wolf v. Burgess
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. I. The notary, it appears, delivered notice of protest for defendant, to Shields at his store, and that: It. Shields remonstrated, stating that Burgess had no place of business there. The notary failed to exercise proper diligence. (Gilchrist vs. Donnell, 53 Mo., 591; Sanderson vs. Reinstad tier, 31 Mo., 483; 1 Pet., 578, 582; 3 Hill, 520; 28 Vt., 316; 1 Pars.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. I. The notary, it appears, delivered notice of protest for defendant, to Shields at his store, and that: It. Shields remonstrated, stating that Burgess had no place of business there. The notary failed to exercise proper diligence. (Gilchrist vs. Donnell, 53 Mo., 591; Sanderson vs. Reinstad tier, 31 Mo., 483; 1 Pet., 578, 582; 3 Hill, 520; 28 Vt., 316; 1 Pars. Notes, 489, Note Y., 490.) 1. The court below properly refused to take the case from the jury, the evidence conflicting as to the notary’s measure of diligence. (Winston vs. Wales, 13 Mo., 569 ;…
1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, Judge
Burgess is the indorser of a negotiable promissory note, on which he is sued, and the only question the record presents is in regard to the endeavor made to notify him of the default of the maker. While the authorities are uniform that suitable exertions must be used in this respect, yet different courts have arrived at variant conclusions as to the quantum of effort necessary to be put forth in order to fill the measure of what the law denominates “due diligence.” Our own court, however, has laid down a rule on this point by which, as being .just, easy of observance and especially applicable…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Gilchrist v. DonnellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
3Cited by1 opinion
- Riggs v. HatchU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1883