Simms v. Larkin
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County. Action on a promissory note alleged to have been executed by the defendant Dousman to the defendant Larkin, and by the latter indorsed to the plaintiff. The defendants answered setting up certain special defenses; and Larkin, for a separate defense in his own behalf, denied presentment and demand of payment, and service of the notice of protest.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County. Action on a promissory note alleged to have been executed by the defendant Dousman to the defendant Larkin, and by the latter indorsed to the plaintiff. The defendants answered setting up certain special defenses; and Larkin, for a separate defense in his own behalf, denied presentment and demand of payment, and service of the notice of protest. On the trial, there was read in evidence for the plaintiff, among other things, a notarial certificate of protest, wbicb stated that on the day of the presentment and protest (viz. February 3d, 1864)…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Cole, J.
The notice was sufficient to charge the indorser. It is objected that it was left at the place of business instead of the residence of the indorser, and therefore was not sufficient. It is one of the most familiar rules of commercial paper, that notice of protest might be served at the place of business of the indorser; and we have no idea the legislature intended to change this rule by the enactment of chapter 79, Laws of 1861. The law was passed before the decision in Westfall v. Farwell, 13 Wis., 504, was made, and in view of the ruling at some of the circuits that the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Westfall v. FarwellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1861