Case ID: nh_2/html/0159-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Woodbury, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GAMALIEL L. DWIGHT vs. JOSEPH EMERSON.
    The holder of a promissory note cannot recover against an endorser, though it he negotiated long after due, unless he pro^e some demand on the maker, and notice to the endorser.
    What demand and notice is necessary in such cases ? qu.
    This was assumpsit on a promissory note from M. H. to the defendant, or order, dated February 25, 1811, and payable in one year.
    The action was against the defendant as endorser, and, at the trial here in May 1819, on the general issue, it was admitted, that the endorsement was not made lilt some months after the note became due ; and it further appeared, that no demand on the maker or notice to the endorser had ever taken place,
    A verdict was returned for the defendant, subject to the opinion of the court,
    
      Okott, for the plaintiff,
    
      Bell, for the defendant.
    (1)4 Ma.&Sel. 226 Claridge vs. Dalton, and other authorities there cited.
    
      
       2 Conn. R. 419, Bishop vs. Dexter.
    
   Woodbury, J.

The only question in this case is well settled in places, where the doctrine on promissory notes in other respects corresponds with that which prevails here.

It is unnecessary to recapitulate the arguments; but they are conclusive, that where a note, payable at a future time, is endorsed after it becomes due, it is still the duty of the holder to demand payment of the maker and give notice of his neglect to the endorser before a suit can be sustained against the latter. 10 Mass. Rep. 54, Sandford vs. Dilaway.—12 do. 450.—13 do. 138.—9 John. 121, Berry vs. Robertson.

Indie ' ft t.u! of .he contractor endorsement, that t‘.r5e t.i 1- ditih ¡a cedo a right of action ; and, though in bd!- of oxW a. drawer is in some cases liable without notice or demand. (7 Mass. Rep. 449.-7 D. & E. 430.-6 mass. Rep. 526.-5 do 170.-1 Sir. 444-1 Salk. 133.-Burr. 669,) yet only where he has no effects in the acceptor's hands,(1; Here the maker is as the acceptor in a bill of exchange ; and there is no foundation in the evidence . for a presumption, that the maker of this note did not execute it to the endorser for an adequate consideration of money, goods, or effects.

(1) 13 Mass. R. 131. Nickerson.

The proper season for a demand and notice in a case like the present is a question of some difficulty ; and which we forbear to discuss till it become necessary. (1)

Judgment on the verdict.