Buck v. Cotton
Supreme Court of Connecticut
THIS was an action against the defendant as indorser of a promissory note, made by one ScovU, dated the 21 si day of February 1815, and payable ninety days after date. The cause was tried at Middletown, July term 1816, before Swift, Ch. J. and Goddard and Hosmer, Js.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action against the defendant as indorser of a promissory note, made by one ScovU, dated the 21 si day of February 1815, and payable ninety days after date. The cause was tried at Middletown, July term 1816, before Swift, Ch. J. and Goddard and Hosmer, Js. On the trial, the plaintiff offered evidence to prove, that he demanded payment of the note from the maker, on the 25th of May 1815 j and that he gave notice to the defendant, that the note had become due, and was not paid, and that lie should look to him, the defendant, for payment, on the 24th, The plaintiff also offered…
1Opinion of the Court
Swift, Ch. J.
No one principle of the common law is better settled than this j that the indorsee of a negotiable note must make demand of payment of the maker, when it becomes due, and give immediate notice of non-payment, to entitle him to recover of the indorser. The only contradictory decision is De Berdt v. Atkinson, 2 H. Bla. 336. where it is said, that a known insolvency of the maker of the note will excuse demand and notice : but this case has since been overruled in England, and in this country ; and the contrary doctrine established.
This rule of law is founded in good reason, and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jackson v. RichardsNew York Supreme Court · 1805
- Eaton v. TaylorMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
3Cited by5 opinions
- Broome v. BeersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1826
- Hollingshead v. McKenzieSupreme Court of Georgia · 1850
- Nolan v. H. E. Wilcox Motor Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1917
- Foundry Manufacturing Co. v. FarrSupreme Court of Vermont · 1923
- Holland v. TurnerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1834