Adams v. Rutherford
Oregon Supreme Court
Marion County. Plaintiff appeals. As against a maker of a promissory note or acceptor of a bill of exchange payable at a specific place, it is not necessary for the holder thereof to make demand of payment at such place, as a condition precedent to bringing an action thereon; nor to aver such demand in the complaint, or prove it on the trial. (Moak’s Van Sant. PI.,. 3d ed., 321; Adams v. Hackensack Imp. .Com., 43 Am.
Read the full summary
Marion County. Plaintiff appeals. As against a maker of a promissory note or acceptor of a bill of exchange payable at a specific place, it is not necessary for the holder thereof to make demand of payment at such place, as a condition precedent to bringing an action thereon; nor to aver such demand in the complaint, or prove it on the trial. (Moak’s Van Sant. PI.,. 3d ed., 321; Adams v. Hackensack Imp. .Com., 43 Am. Rep... 407. The liability of the maker of a note payable at a. particular place, or of the acceptor of a bill so payable, is-not a conditional liability depending upon…
1DissentWaldo, C. J.
This may be stated to be a contract, substantially, to pay money at a day certain, with a condition to pay at an earlier day if the debtor shall fail to do a certain act.' The plaintiff alleges the' happening of the contingency on which the money was to be paid at the earlier day, and claims the payment provided for in that case by the contract'. The case turns on the happening or not happening of the contingency — or is the debtor in default? If so, the case is at an end.
The parties have expressly agreed that, on a certain contingency, payment shall be made at the earlier day. The…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hills v. . PlaceNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Caldwell v. CassidyNew York Supreme Court · 1828
- Basse v. GalleggerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1859
- Mayo v. JudahSupreme Court of Virginia · 1817
- Covington v. ComstockSupreme Court of the United States · 1840
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.