Crain v. Colwell
New York Supreme Court
IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court, Colwell sued Crain, as endorser of a promissory note, given by one Gillet to him. 'After the note was negoRated and had become due, the plaintiff received part of Qf the maker. Three months after it fell due, and a few days after the maker had absconded, the plaintiff de- ; manded thq£ balance of the defendant, who said, he would “ turn o,ut notes, though he did not think he was holden, since Gillet went away.”
Read the full summary
IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court, Colwell sued Crain, as endorser of a promissory note, given by one Gillet to him. 'After the note was negoRated and had become due, the plaintiff received part of Qf the maker. Three months after it fell due, and a few days after the maker had absconded, the plaintiff de- ; manded thq£ balance of the defendant, who said, he would “ turn o,ut notes, though he did not think he was holden, since Gillet went away.” The plaintiff refused t^le notes. -jfAt a subsequent time, the defendant refused to „jve tijem to the plaintiff. There was a judgment °…
1Per curiam
Crain was not holden as endorser. There was no proof of a demand on the maker, and notice of non-payment to Crain, as endorsor. As the holder had received part payment of the maker, after *385the note fell due, and two months before he called on the endorser, it is to be presumed that he looked solely to the maker, and gave him credit. This was also £t discharge to the endorser. Nor was the promise by the endorser binding, unless upon the terms prescribed, which were refused. It does not appear that the promise was made under a knowledge of the want of a due demand on the maker, and due notice to…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Sice v. CunninghamNew York Supreme Court · 1823
- Newberry v. TrowbridgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1865
- Donaldson v. MeansSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1791
- Whittlesey & Stone v. DeanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1827