Cromer v. Platt
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Berrien. Assumpsit against the endorser of a promissory note. On failure to find the maker, the holders sent to the endorser the following letter: “St. Joseph, Mich., February 4, 1873. Mr. Cromer — Dear Sir: We hold, a note given by Thos. A. Bunbury, dated St. Joseph, July 1st, 1872,-payable seven months after date to your order, for one hundred and fifty dollars with interest at ten per cent.
Read the full summary
Error to Berrien. Assumpsit against the endorser of a promissory note. On failure to find the maker, the holders sent to the endorser the following letter: “St. Joseph, Mich., February 4, 1873. Mr. Cromer — Dear Sir: We hold, a note given by Thos. A. Bunbury, dated St. Joseph, July 1st, 1872,-payable seven months after date to your order, for one hundred and fifty dollars with interest at ten per cent. The note being endorsed by you, and not paid at this date, we look to' you for payment of the same. Yours resply, Platt & Brother.” The following letters from the endorser were admitted-in…
1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, J.
This was a suit against an endorser, and his liability, upon the facts found, depended on the sufficiency of the notice of dishonor, inasmuch as the letters relied on as recognitions of liability are equivocal and not enough to indicate any promise to pay.
The notice was full in every other respect except as to the fact of demand and refusal. As to these it simply declared that the note was unpaid, . and the holders looked to the endorser for payment.
This left the facts of presentment and refusal to inference. The question is whether a notice of this kind is valid.
There are cases both numerous…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Burkam v. TrowbridgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1861
3Cited by2 opinions
- Myers v. Bibee Grocery Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1927
- First National Bank v. FreemanMichigan Supreme Court · 1882