Bishop v. Dexter
Supreme Court of Connecticut
THIS was action of assumpsit, by the indorsee of a note, claiming, through two intermediate indorsements, against the first indorser. The cause was tried at Mew-Haven, January term, 1818, before Trumbull, Baldwin and Hosmer, Js.
Read the full summary
THIS was action of assumpsit, by the indorsee of a note, claiming, through two intermediate indorsements, against the first indorser. The cause was tried at Mew-Haven, January term, 1818, before Trumbull, Baldwin and Hosmer, Js. The note in question was made by John S. Whittlesey, payable to Mormand Dexter, (the defendant) or order, six months from the'date, and dated September 28th, 1815. Af- ■ cr it fell due, via. on the 16th of Jlpril, 1816, and after a suit had been brought upon it, in the name of the payee, in which Whittlesey’s body was attached and committed to gaol, Dexter, for a…
1Opinion of the Court
Swift, Ch. J.
It appears, that Dexter, the defendant, indorsed to Converse a negotiable note against Whittlesey, after it was due, and had been put in suit; that Converse indorsed it to Judd, and Judd to Bishop the plaintiff; that after the indorsement by the defendant, no demand was ever made of Wrhittlesey the maker of the note, and no notice ever given to the defendant. The plaintiff claims, that he has a right to recover of the defendant on his indorsement, the note never having been paid by Whittlesey.
The indorsement of a bill or note after due is equivalent tr drawing a new bill payable…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Lloyd v. KeachSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1817
- Hollingsworth v. AdamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1798
3Cited by10 opinions
- Hill v. MartinSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1822
- Bemis v. McKenzieSupreme Court of Florida · 1869
- Patterson v. Todd & LemonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1852
- French v. JarvisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1860
- McKewer v. KirtlandSupreme Court of Iowa · 1871
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.