Ticonic Bank v. Stackpole
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On Beport from Nisi Prius, Mat, J., presiding. Assumpsit against the defendant as indorser of a note, of which the following is a copy: — “$1000. “ Waterville, March 2, 1855. “ Three months from date, for value received, we promise to pay James Stackpole, or order, at Ticonic Bank, one thous- and dollars. (Signed) “ E. B. Blanchard, “D. L. Stilson.” (Indorsed) “James Stackpole.” The plea was the general issue; the specification of defence was denial of notice of non-payment.
Read the full summary
On Beport from Nisi Prius, Mat, J., presiding. Assumpsit against the defendant as indorser of a note, of which the following is a copy: — “$1000. “ Waterville, March 2, 1855. “ Three months from date, for value received, we promise to pay James Stackpole, or order, at Ticonic Bank, one thous- and dollars. (Signed) “ E. B. Blanchard, “D. L. Stilson.” (Indorsed) “James Stackpole.” The plea was the general issue; the specification of defence was denial of notice of non-payment. The plaintiff read the note, and also the copy of the record of protest of said note, by the notary public, under his…
1Opinion of the CourtAppleton, J.
By R. S., c. 44, § 12, it is enacted that “ the protest of any foreign or inland bill of exchange or promissory note or order, duly certified by any notary public under his hand and official seal, shall be legal evidence of the facts stated in such protest, and also as to the notice given to the drawer or indorser in any Court of law.”
From the protest of the notary public, which by agreement is made part of the case, it appears, that on the last day of grace, having the note in suit, he went to the Ticonic Bank where the same was payable, and presenting the same to the cashier, demanded…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Bettis v. SchreiberSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883