Case ID: me_47/html/0351-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Warren Loud versus Ambrose Merrill.
    In an action upon a promissory note, though, the suit is by an indorsee against an indorser, and the note is payable in another State, no damages for protest are allowed, as upon bills of exchange.
    This was a suit by an indorsee against an indorser of a promissory note for §5000, payable at the Suffolk Bank in Boston. In disposing of the case, the clerk was inadvertently directed to allow the plaintiff damages for the protest, as upon a bill of exchange. See Loud v. Merrill, 45 Maine, 516.
    Upon being informally presented again by cpunsel, and argued upon that point, the Court were unanimously of the opinion, that promissory notes, though negotiated, were not within the provisions of § 35, c. 82, of the B. S. of 1851, relating to that subject; and no such damages were allowed.
    
      J. H. Williams, for plaintiff.
    
      J. W. Bradbury, for defendant.