Case ID: mass_12/html/0151-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Curia.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The President, Directors, and Company of the State Bank versus Benjamin Hurd.
    A negotiable promissory note, indorsed to the plaintiff by the defendant, may be given in evidence in an action for money had and received.
    Where a promissor appointed a place to notify him of his notes falling due, a notice duly left at such place was holden sufficient to charge the indorser.
    *The declaration, which was in assumpsit, contained a [*172J special count upon a promissory note, and a count for money had and received by the defendant to the use of the plaintiffs
    It was agreed by parties, ed, and that judgment should be rendered for the plaintiffs upon the first count in the declaration, for the amount due upon the note therein described ; and also upon the second count in the declaration, to the amount of another promissory note, which the plaintiffs held against the defendant, as indorser of the following paper, namely, “ Boston, 4th August, 1814. For value received, I promise to pay Mr. Benjamin Hurd or order five hundred dollars in forty-seven days and grace at the State Bank.” Signed, Joseph Larkin. In dorsed, Benjamin Hurd. Provided the said last-described note could legally be given in evidence to a jury under the said second count. Notices according to the forms of banks were left for the promissor, and for the defendant, as indorser, at one Metcalf’s shop in Cornhill, Boston, by direction of the said Larkin and Hurd respectively. No other notice or demand was made, although the said parties both lived and did business in Boston The parties agreed that judgment should be rendered, as the law should direct, upon the default of the defendant, or the nonsuit of the plaintiffs.
    
      Smith, for the plaintiffs.
    
      Rockwood, for the defendant.
   Curia.

The authorities cited the counsel for the clearly show that a count for money had and received may he maintained upon a negotiable promissory note, indorsed by the party against whom the action is brought, to the party who brings the action., There is no inconvenience in such a count; [*173] for the Court will always take care *that the defendant, when called upon to answer to such a general charge, shall have reasonable notice-of the ground of the suit; and the same evidence of diligence and notice will be required, as if the declaration had been special upon the note.

The other objection made in the argument, namely, that a demand was not duly made on the promissor, is not supported.

The agreement of the promissor, that notice left for him at a certain shop in Boston should be equivalent to a more formal demand upon him, removed the necessity of resorting to his house or place of business, to make such demand ; and his failure to pay on such notice rendered the indorser, who had seasonable information, absolutely liable.

Defendant defaulted. 
      
       2 Strange, 719, 725. — Bull. N. P. 136, 137. — Chitty on Bills, P. 2, c. 2. — 1 Burr. 373. — 1 Salk. 129. — 3 Burr. 1516, & c.
      
     
      
      
        Page, Adm'r., vs. The Bank of Alexandria, 7 Wheat. 35.—Hennings vs. Rothschild, 4 Brugh. 334, — Rhodes vs. Gent, 5 B. A. 245. — Eales vs. Dicker, 1 M. M. 325, note. — Bayley, 5th ed., 358. Bat the rule generally adopted is, that the plaintiff can recover on this count only where the bill or note is to be enforced between the immediate parties, or privies in contract. Waymam vs. Bend, 1 Campb. 175. — Exon vs. Russel, 4 Mo. S. 507.— Thompson vs. Morgan, 3 Campb. 101. — Wells vs. Girling, Gow, 22, 3 B. Moore, 79. — Bentley vs. Northouse, 1 M. & M. 66. — Eales vs. Dicker, 1 M. & M. 324. — Mandeville vs. Riddle, 1 Crunch, 290. — Surtees vs. Hubbard, 4 Esp. 204 —Mowry vs. Todd, post, 281.— Smith vs. Smith, 2 Johns. R. 235. — Sexton vs. Johnson, 10 Johns. R. 418.— Weston vs. Penniman, 1 Mason, 306. — Priddy vs. Henbry, 1 B. & C. 674.— Withwell vs. Bennett, 3 B.& P. 559.—Barlow vs. Bishop, 1 East, 434.— Taylor vs. Higgins, 3 East, 169. Sed vide Cole vs. Cushing, 8 Pick. 48.— Wild vs. Fisher, 4 Pick. 421. — Dimsdale vs. Lanchester, 4 Esp. 201.— Grant vs. Vaughn, Burr. 1516. — Bayley on Bills, 4th ed., p. 287.— Olcott vs. Rathbone, 5 Wend 495. — Pierce vs. Crafts, 12 Johns. R. 90.
     
      
      
         The note being in terms made payable at the State Bank. no presentment or demand elsewhere could be necessary. Roe vs. Young, 2 Brod & Bing. 242.—Ambrose vs Hopwood, 2 Taunt. 51.— Bayley on Bills, 5th ed., 219. — Saunderson & al. vs Judge, 2 H. BL 509. — Saunderson vs. Bowes, 14 East, 508. — Dickenson vs. Bowes, 16 East, 110.— Roche vs. Campbell, 3 Campb. 247. — Price vs. Mitchell, 4 Campb. 200. Callaghan vs. Aylett, 3 Taunt. 397. — Gammon vs. Schmoll, 5 Taunt. 344 — 1 Marshy 80.
      
        [Ellsworth vs. Brewer, 11 Pick. 316. — Ed.]