Case ID: lock-rev-cas_1/html/0047-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Remer v. Downer, 23 Wend. 620.
    Reported 21 Wend. 10.
    
      Promissory Note; Notice to Endorser.
    
    The Supreme Court held in this case, (overruling the case of Cuyler v. Nellis, 4 Wend. 348,) that a notice of protest sent by mail, directed to the town where the party resides, is sufficient, although there he several post-offices in the same town, unless it appears that the holder knew that it should be directed in a different manner, (as now by statute passed since this case occurred,) unless the party when affixing his signature to a bill or no’te, specify thereon the post-office to which notice must be addressed.
    That court also held, that where the sum specified in the notice of protest, varies from the true amount of the note, it is for the jury to say whether the party has or has not been misled; and gave judgment for plaintiff.
   The Court of Errors, however, the Chancellor delivering the only opinion, reversed the judgment; he concurring with the Supreme Court in overruling Cwyler v. Nellis, but holding that.the misdescription of the amount of the note, in the notice of protest, the notice informing the defendant that “Your note for $999 52 endorsed by him (P. the cashier who sent it) “was protested,y &c.; instead of note for $560, payable to Whitaker and endorsed to him, was fatal, and that the question was one of law for the judge at the circuit, and should not have been left to the jury. He however intimated his opinion that the misdirection of the letter on the inside, to the cashier, would have been cured by the correct address on the outside, if it had not been for the misdescription of the noté.

But in 25 Wend, 277, the reporter has published Senator Verplanck’s opinion in this case, in favor of a reversal, but holding that the question as to misdescription of the note, should have been left to the jury; and the reporter adds a note, claiming that the question of the tribunal whose province it was to decide upon the sufficiency of the notice, may be considered as open, notwithstanding the reversal of the judgment. Sed quere ?