Eagle Bank v. Chapin
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was assumpsit against the defendant as indorser of a promissory note, payable on the 1st of November, 1822, at the Merchants bank in the city of New York. A trial was had upon the general issue. The plaintiffs produced the deposition of W. S. Rossiter, the cashier of the Eagle bank, stating that on the 1st of November the plaintiffs owned the note.
Read the full summary
This was assumpsit against the defendant as indorser of a promissory note, payable on the 1st of November, 1822, at the Merchants bank in the city of New York. A trial was had upon the general issue. The plaintiffs produced the deposition of W. S. Rossiter, the cashier of the Eagle bank, stating that on the 1st of November the plaintiffs owned the note. Also the deposition of W. C. Mulligan, a notary public at New York, stating that on the 1st of November, which was Friday,, he presented the note at the Merchants bank for payment, which was refused ; that on the same day a notice was made out…
1Opinion of the Court
Parker C. J.
gave the opinion of the Court to the follow-mg effect. It is objected, that the contents of the notice to the defendant should not have been proved by parol, he not having been called upon to produce the notice. But *183we do not think that rule of evidence is to be applied to such a case. A notice to an indorser relates to a few simple facts, and it has been usual to prove it without calling on the party to produce the written notice received by him ; and this course is in accordance with some of the authorities cited.1
It is then said that the notary did not make due inquiry as to…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Field v. NickersonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1816
- Osborn v. MoncureNew York Supreme Court · 1829
- Lindenberger v. BeallSupreme Court of the United States · 1821
- Cuyler v. StevensNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Reedy v. SeixasNew York Supreme Court · 1801
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.