Bank of Utica v. Davidson
New York Supreme Court
This was an action of assumpsit against the endorser oí a promissory note for $350, dated at South Bainbridge, 29th June, 1827. The note was made in renewal of a previous note, endorsed by the defendant for the accommodation of the same maker.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit against the endorser oí a promissory note for $350, dated at South Bainbridge, 29th June, 1827. The note was made in renewal of a previous note, endorsed by the defendant for the accommodation of the same maker. When it was presented for discount by the agent of the maker, he informed a clerk in the hank that the defendant and two other endorsers resided in Bainbridge, of which the clerk, in conformity to the uniform custom of the bank, made a memorandum. When due, it was protested, and notice of protest sent per mail, directed to the defendant at Bainbridge,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Sutherland, J.
The only question in this case is whether sufficient notice of the dishonor of the note on which the suit is brought was given to the defendant to charge him as endorser, which resolves itself into the inquiry whether due diligence on the part of the plaintiff was shewn to ascertain the residence of the defendant.
If the holder of a note is ignorant of the place where the endorser resides, and cannot ascertain it after diligent inquiry, notice sent to the place where the note bears dale will be sufficient. If no place appears on the face of the note, notice must be…
2Cited by17 opinions
- Bank of Utica v. BenderNew York Supreme Court · 1839
- Catskill Bank v. StallNew York Supreme Court · 1836
- Addington v. Western & Atlantic RailroadSupreme Court of Georgia · 1894
- Harris v. RobinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1846
- Lawrence v. . MillerNew York Court of Appeals · 1857
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.