Bank v. Bank
Ohio Supreme Court
2. Where a promissory note, successively endorsed by more than one, is dishonored by the maker, the holder thereof may select any one of the endorsers whom he may wish to charge with liability and notify him only; but if he passes by one or more of the later endorsers, and gives notice to an earlier -one, he is not for that reason entitled to any longer time, within which to give the notice, than he would have had to -notify his immediate endorser. 3. Where an endorser of a…
Read the full summary
2. Where a promissory note, successively endorsed by more than one, is dishonored by the maker, the holder thereof may select any one of the endorsers whom he may wish to charge with liability and notify him only; but if he passes by one or more of the later endorsers, and gives notice to an earlier -one, he is not for that reason entitled to any longer time, within which to give the notice, than he would have had to -notify his immediate endorser. 3. Where an endorser of a promissory note has been discharged by the laches of the holder, a subsequent promise by him to pay the note will not be…
1Opinion of the CourtBradbury, J.
There is no conflict in the evidence relating to any material fact in this case. The petition avers that the plaintiff in error had purchased the note, which is the subject of controversy between the parties hereto, in due course of business before it became due. This, it is true, the answer of the defendant in error denies, but the cashier of the plaintiff in error, G. B. Harman, states directly and unequivocally in his deposition, that his bank purchased the paper of the payee, S. J. Patterson, on August 20, 1888, five days after its date, at a discount of seven per cent.; that the discount…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Tebbetts & Pearce v. DowdNew York Supreme Court · 1840
- Stanton v. BlossomMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1817
- Lewis v. BrehmeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1871
- Mense v. OsbernSupreme Court of Missouri · 1839