Case ID: nh_1/html/0080-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per miriam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MARTHA TREDICK versus ABRAHAM WENDELL.
    Where a note of hand was left at a bank for collection, and on the day when it became due a letter was sent to the house of the maker, which was within a few rods of the bank, informing him where the note was, and requesting him to pay it, but the maker when the letter was delivered was not at home — it was held to be a sufficient demand to charge the endorser, although the note was not sent to the house of the maker. °
    ASSUMPSIT on a note of hand made by Q. W. Wendell, and payable to Abraham Wendell, or order, in six months, and by the latter endorsed to the plaintiff.
    
      The cause was tried upon the general issue, at the last term in this county, when it appeared in evidence that the note had been duly made and endorsed, and left by the plaintiff at the Portsmouth bank, for collection ; and on the day when it became due the cashier of the bank sent a letter to G. W. Wendell, informing him where the note was, and requesting him to pay it; which letter was on the same day left at the house of G. W. Wendell with his daughter, he at the time not being at home. It also appeared that G. IF. Wendell lived within a few rods of the bank, and that due notice was given to the defendant of the non-payment of the note. In behalf of the defendant, it was objected that the note ought to have been presented at the house of the maker for payment, and that the demand was therefore insufficient to charge the endorser. A verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court upon that question.
    
      I. Bartlett, for the plaintiff.
    
      E. Cutis, Jr. for the defendant.
    The following cases were cited by the counsel: 7 Mass. Rep. 483, Freeman (pal. vs. Boynton. — 1 Durn, Sp E. 167, Tindall vs. Brown. — 13 Mass. Rep. 556, Woodbridge iV al. vs. Brigham 6)’ al.
    
   Per miriam.

The general rule undoubtedly is, that when a demand is made of the maker, the note itself should bé presented, in order that it may be delivered to him upon its being paid; but we think the facts in this case shew a sufficient compliance on the part of the plaintiff with the spirit of the rule. The note was in a bank within a few rods of the maker’s house, and he was informed where the note was, and requested to pay it. This was, in our .opinion, giving him a sufficient opportunity to pay the note and take it up, had he been disposed to do it.

Judgment on the verdict.