Case ID: mich-np-r_1/html/0037-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Sutherland, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William Barrie vs. John McDenegle.
    Where a note ia made payable oa demand, at a certain place, it i« not necessary to show, in order to entitle the holder to recover, that demand watt made at such placo before suit was brought.
    
      Tried without jury, Nov. 29, 1869,
    
      in the Circuit Court for the county of Saginaw.
    
    
      H. H. Hoyt, for Plaintiff.
    
      Peck & Clark, for Defendants.
   By the Court,

Sutherland, J.

The only question is, whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover, on a note for $200, payable on demand, at a specified place, without showing a demand before suit, at that place.

This precise question has not been decided in this State; but it was held in the case of Reeve, et. al, vs. Peck, 6 Mich. 240, that a note payable at a particular place, need not, before suit, be presented there for payment.

Whether the same rule will apply to this note will perhaps admit of some doubt, for there are American cases opposed to it. 17 Mass. 389; 3 N. H. 333; 13 Pet. 36; 10 Leigh, 512. I think, however, that to permit suit to be brought without previous can be reconciled with the contract, is more convenient, and better accords with the practice and sense of businessmen. It is also supported by respectable authorities — 3 Wend, 13; 21 Me. 98; 6 Ala. 701; 1 Gill & John, 176.

Judgment for Plaintiff.