Keyes v. Winter
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Ok EepoRt. Asstdipsit against the defendant as indorser of a negotiable promissory note, dated August 25, 1856, given by the defendant’s brother Elisha to the defendant for labor, and by the defendant indorsed in blank, and payable on demand. The writ bore date September 16, 1865. The defence was (1,) statute of limitations; and (2,) want of demand and notice.
Read the full summary
Ok EepoRt. Asstdipsit against the defendant as indorser of a negotiable promissory note, dated August 25, 1856, given by the defendant’s brother Elisha to the defendant for labor, and by the defendant indorsed in blank, and payable on demand. The writ bore date September 16, 1865. The defence was (1,) statute of limitations; and (2,) want of demand and notice. It appeared from the report that the defendant was absent from the State, "out west,” from the date of the note to November, 1858, and that he served in the 6th Maine Battery, in Virginia, from Fob., 1863, to June 17, 1865. The…
1Opinion of the Court
Kent, J.,
This action is not barred by the statute of limitations. After deducting the time of the absence of the defendant from the State, after the cause of action accrued against him, we find that the term during which the statute ran is less than six years. R. S.. c. 81, § 114.
*401It is also clear that no demand and notice was given in fací, so as to charge the indorser. The only question is whether there was a waiver of such demand aud notice by the defendant. The evidence on that point is, that the defendant applied to the plaintiff for a loan of money; that he first offered the note of his…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Baumeister v. KuntzSupreme Court of Florida · 1907
- Morris v. Birmingham National BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890