Glasgow v. Pratte
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR to the St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. The only point presented is, whether the defendant had notice of the non-payment of the note, by the makers.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. The only point presented is, whether the defendant had notice of the non-payment of the note, by the makers. The evidence on this head is preserved in the bill of exceptions; wherein the defendant, who was present when the note fell due and was presented for payment, consented that the same might not be protested for non-payment, and consented to waive any protest at that time. — 2 Chitty’s Rep.; Chitty on Bills, 502, verbal notice sufficient; Ibid., 446, 484, 467, showing that no new notice was required; 16 East. 1. An express verbal agreement…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, Judge
This was an action of assumpsit, on a promissory note made by Grimsley and Young, payable to Bernard Pratte, at the office of the Mutual Insurance Company of St. Louis, and by him endorsed to William Glasgow.
The action was by the endorsee, Glasgow, against the endorser, Pratte.
On the trial, it was proved by Young, one of the makers of the note, that on the day it became due, he went to the plaintiff and informed him, that he would not be able to pay more than half the amount of the note at that time, and asked for a week longer to pay the balance. The plaintiff said he had no objection to the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Cuyler v. StevensNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Union Bank of Georgetown v. MagruderSupreme Court of the United States · 1833
3Cited by3 opinions
- Brown v. JonesIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
- Foundry Manufacturing Co. v. FarrSupreme Court of Vermont · 1924
- First National Bank v. RyersonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1867