Case ID: shan-cas_1/html/0609-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Freeman, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ZACK BRYANT v. W. H. COLEY.
    Jackson,
    September Term, 1876.
    1. BILLS AND NOTES. Transferred after maturity, demand and notice to malee indorser liable.
    The indorser of a past due note is liable for the payment thereof where the indorsee makes demand of payment in a reasonable time after such indorsement, and on failure of payment gives the indorser notice on the same or next day. [See note 20 under sec. 3205 of the Code. See Rosson v. Carroll, 6 Pickle, 90, and citations.]
    Cited with approval as to what is a reasonable time: Union Bank v. Ezell, 10 Hum., 386.
    2. PRACTICE. Affidavit for new trial based on newly discovered testimony, insufficient, when.
    An affidavit tendered on -motion for a new trial proposing merely cumulative testimony, and without the affidavits of the witnesses showing that such proof could be made by them, is insufficient.
   Freeman, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Bryant indorsed a note after due to Coley. Coley sues him as indorser, and claims that he made demand of payment in a reasonable time after such indorsement, and on failure of payment gave notice to Bryant on- the same or the next day.'

There is conflict in the testimony on this question, but the jury have belieA^ed the plaintiff, and Ave see no cause to disturb their A'-erdict.

The charge of the court is correct, and in accord Avith the case of Union Bank a\ Fzell, 10 ITum., 386, as to what Avas a reasonable time in which to make demand of the makers of the note.

The affidavit tendered on motion for a new trial was not sufficient, as it aatis merely cumulative testimony proposed, and besides no affidavit of any one of the-Avitnesses referred to, showing that such proof could be made by them. On the whole the case Avas properly decided, and Ave affirm the judgment.