Case ID: us_4/html/0130-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bank of North America v. Wycoff. 
    
    
      Notice of nonpayment.— Witness.
    
    The indorser of a promissory note must receive notice, within a reasonable time, of the non-payment of the note by the maker.
    An executor, who is entitled to a share in the residuum of his testator’s estate, which is interested in the suit, is not a competent witness to prove such notice, although the objection appear on his cross-examination.
    Case, by the indorsee against the payee and indorser of a promissory note, made by Joseph Harrison.
    The question was, whether the defendant had received notice within a reasonable time, of the non-payment of the note by the maker? Jacob Lawerswyler, the runner of the bank, was called as a witness, to prove the notice ; but after a long examination in chief, he stated on Ms cross-examination, “that he was the executor of Jacob Winney, a stockholder in the bank of North America; and was entitled to a share in the residuum of the testator’s estate.”
    *The defendant’s counsel then objected to the competency of the witness, on account of his Mterest in the bank. They insisted, that although this appeared after a cross-examination, it was sufficient for the rejection of his evidence altogether; and that, consequently, as there was no proof of notice, independent of his evidence, the plaintiff must be non-suited.
    
      
      
         s. c. 2 Yeates 39.
    
   The Court concurring, clearly and explicitly, in the opinion of the defendant’s counsel,

The plaintiff suffered a nonsuit.