New-York daily tribune., 1849-04-27
Liability Of RnsOrter--An Important Com
merciHl Decision.
'fsn l-A-.-r- Day A-7-.

/ " G Llt. IN the Ntr- IOr. L<g7l Dtf-rrr the
following report q cause which hss been several
yesrs pending IL cur county The fns decision Of
which Is considered important T. the commercial com
muoily settling the question ihs, notice Of pro
test ia order 70 be es-ciual ned not be Tec-' 10
aoef0 o0nry J97na 70 iAs caaors7 Of ,s aoa pa
aaet Of Non7
Is 80 cs-ET - t'''.s' ~, casas c--y -~ 20 Af'a-
t--'rs s.i .f- --t -.f- .i a-...t nay r= tisi 80
t.g-a ..' By ses-..ay is''
iay ,aa-sei s-r-,+ - - ' ---,.-r -n- --
I-.- 49, ~ ,,.- ), .---. .., nv -o,- oi .-.,-.'
ho.ere s-leats. s- t- c -rf q wen ia-' r .''r-oa
t,r.. t- .--t.a. r.,s .'--s.- q. .- fr.,-.t-'
u ~aa- tas,a - .' l-,.-' af, ,ay a.rft g. "a
l-..,n ..da-ly s--na. uaa - a'rHa'
ss- r ,a,- ---t aa .a "a, .-.s.- = r,5H,,, -
t- a.'s Lac a--r -i.- 'la. matter Of cease p, - --
a- Of rr.,-., s-.e,sss ,' s-.-a-=' - a. a,
eli s-se tte esq Ell .-rs .. r-f y
The Defendants were s.ed as the oi'i erdor'er' Of
at1 L4adrd aolar note i. vsi IN ID: words and
CURES following, 10 uit:
SO '.' 49, .'- ~. ,.'. ---.--.
o. tt- C-tlei c...-l la..-- A.t-ra. 4--lr-.y
Iat.r.-i. " ? J. G,,-.... "a w.ufr
The cause was tricd a; the Cayuga Circu, 10 Jauua
~ l-a- before Hon. John Maynard. without a Jury
On the ia Of the the sint - proved Ihsi l1e
notice of protest served In this directed 10
raj defendant tndird aly and not n them 9is and
vac 10 the words and tSlres following T. VII
"c.,a-s c. ..,'y B'r', Ar'rse ~ i-'.
-sfr Tsl- s,-.- tlai- Va-.-r'- -.'- f''.- "'
aeat ,a-r-of Y5ur sae,i'.r..s't ..-... ...-r..
The plaintiffs then proved. under objections y de,
f4a5sus counse that -stt rice Warden, lhe maker VI
the note had other uote iu the bank % when 'u'
defendants we're eud0r'ers That -aitef zee "sfofn ie
I % N.N t.faf ar 90
ycsfs That the note 30 question was s'en 10 rene"a
VI former note Irst GrisP14i Usually at'fn2-1 =,
M renewal Tta' tne prev a not vas n '' ID
ana ras due the tl Of November. D. g. fni was pr noe
ID, Warden T1sti renewed - ihe note IN
sur and The payment ~ - ID. ..- -.
The defsudau;s then proved ;ha, Tie note oi - 81
given 70 renew noie iof 30 a'.coun'eu ~ W
.sl .s about The -f'a of April l-H which note wa'
-ir,l lor two notes one against Leonard = NHrarn H.
md one scsinst Warden g. ~a'eree Tor S.-i 90 eacn
That the defendants were eBcosers on ihr note t'rh
| by Leonard O. Warden and The defendant Urls
,ylI3 wa We alone cRdorser IN the note gwen
by Warden sa,ter~e That both o. the So =. notes
were dated November ID l- i3, and inAt the " srorh
zho com % sad one Of the hrm Of Warden -aitefirr
| and i.of ard IS Warden, vas Ss:ter,-e Warden the
maker of the note ana not the same warden wac CO.
d,rsd the note in question John Porter for plaintiffs
! Warren T. Worden Tor defendants.
LEVITT Ch There - no question tut thht cue
nreeeutneut for payment snd n0tce % non pagmentt
the cudorscrs Of promssory note are conotohs pre-
cecent . the liability o the crdorsers ana uh nr 10
/ tr0 be fItnFr NTIttu Ut ffi'As 'AJt't 90 ~
| v.ns Wcnd ll6 such pres,ntmeut oi tie note 10
question was made, and notice oi nou-psymens 10 the
f,n shown by the evidence given. The only material
risst'ou Then s whether that notice is su'lent u -
yu s,,l,6 mat there s no precse form II words ne
c.ssary 20 be- utcd In giving notice u IL suncfnt u le
angusre used Is such ss ia express terms Or ~ nfces
ssry nycap "a. % convey notice u ihe ehloisris on
the Identity Of the note and that payment on H. on cue
oresentment been neglected OF refused ~ the ma
| ker -t,,-,, ,
The fact Which was necessary to be established By
.H. IA D. 4 fsf fHtIs d.
the di.honor Of the note In question Tho notice sucn
"a II was given At the cfe time and place required
by law The evidence shows that this note was s'el
fr balance due upon aut IN renewal 0i iormcr note
PAYABLE ~ the same bank On the I'm oi November
~ made by : Warden and endorsed iy the defend
ante H. " h1se order 70 was made paysoe. bat u +
c1utenicd that the Touce merely informs lhr uritL.
ants Of the non payment OF note drawn aAi rn1sfsea
r,..,-tivey bv the defendants for $500 ami not Ot
mole lor 5000 endorsed hyt tho defendants .hiy. Con
cede that such variance msdcscripuon efisis i
vel settled IN accordance with good sense mat al IN
material variance 10 the notice viii not uta,e u u
must be- such that under the cifcumstlncee OF tA'
case conveys 10 sufficient hno"tdgf 70 70; oHA'lsei'
Of the identity Of the particular note "hrn L's D5t
dial,nored Mills ~ the Bank of the United S.ates
| WneatoD. 43l; Bank OF Alexandra rs swami, Pc
ters. 49, -.
was the only note in the bark drawn Dy = arden ant
| endorsed by the deiendanis and the inumallon con
| yeycd by the figures "s 5000 upon me margin ol tn'
notice who can doubt but that ts HD'.e conveyed =
the ni4d ~ che a. eHdGsts the Information that thu
ifegfiesl n,te had been cifh0nOred although u mis-
described the note It retPocts The sum Tor ~nch
was made In the b.dy Of Il. The defendants KNOWN.
the facts stated t rtcte - ts Hofct coull noi a
n seems TO me fail 20 be sppri1ed by H. th9t this par
tcular note had been dishonored lt was SAID on tn
srsuuneut that the notice . De etectuhl must Oe per
la, on It's face To convey the Information q the ~
d1rsers of the non payment of the note and ihAt
could not be aided by accessory facts Ihe cases o
Slgi-oqv y groifswaif Z Noes 4 Welsh 43t and Sec,
man v Pa~r II Macs. & Welsb. 500 are very much %
-. hat "A Ii detective
bs aided ty such facts and that 1t is proper 10 consd
them in deciding the question OF the suieency oi 'uei
notice. l.. ,.u j,
f,cv, and insufficient to charge the defendants as en
dorsers Of the note in question on the ground tnai m
notice describes the enforcement OF the nDN hs an m
dividusl and not a joint endorsement Inc lo'e
drawn payable "to the order OF r.. l.. 6f'"old an D.
4 Warden" and 10 endorsed hy lne pAye-s frspe'''F'
v In such case the law requires notice 10 De given
each of them ~ notice 10 one s not as II VII 10 th
case OF partners.he deemed hu'ee !" va-H ''"e'' W.
is r.. Green, 3D. ilil. ~ ,-,
| Tbe objection re,ts upon the ground OF miilescrp
ton OF the note 10 question thst ihn f.eP el tne n
rice did not and not calculated u i0l "a, oelenu
the NON usvment o. the note thai 10 elect slc
ohiec, the notice should hsve described the note
having be, n endorsed ~ both defendants u seems
NJ that to hold IN conformity win his % W
se n sscr ice substance o. the mcrrst tecnhcA iuI
i,v and IL Quite Impossible not 20 see that EHaf "a
Circumstances u ttis cas- the nOtce iLly ofeu 'u
that th,s particular ste hsd been dithonoreo
| Another objection 10 the notice i, that It does nl
.tate that payment Of this note was ever DEN Hndtu
,hat IL was refused nor Kheg nor Nirf such detnan
"a, made aud payment refused. The notice u aHie'
| "csvuea County Bank Auburn. Msy 3, l-io, Al
states that Wsrden's note for S3OO paJho.e AZ tnl
Bank endorsed sc wss this evening protested or non
psyment and the holders look 10 you Tor ine payReA
| thereof .t - ,, W.,
ton i3l shows that IL need not be stated III the n0
| thst a demsnd OF payment was made ihai u is sli
cnt T. state the fact of nonpsy nent OF tne noe
tho notice In this case aeges-t states tns' ine h''
VS. tested for non payment Whether toe 1einai
va, duly ard regularly made is matter OF evidence
b. given At the tfis snd 10 the sse eueet 'he cas-
| n Sockirg vs Collins Carr Payne, o95
Am OF uinion that ihe notice a1a1 'e
cf EI. -asf was sufficient and that ne Court oe.o'
| srrea In It's Judgment Thst Il should Do reverse
.ith renirs ~ moro By ths, Court and that 1he cost
| should abide the event - , A..
| "a. 81 P.aa '. D~a.f. Drls 49,, Nfl-aa X -sf
Tuy C,ruollc CoLLEGE.-Ihe House 90 he
n-sser,stives As Yesterday the scene OF an nierestn
"a pro,rscted De bate the question oi staluns
a., II Incorporation 70 the Roman Catholic CoAesr :
Xorcester Many s5le snd powerful speeches. "'f
nase I'm favor Of the bill snd in opposition 70
,be p.rhap, The most effective wa the speech o Ai
| r.ah.m Of salem who adyOcsted the measure W
rtf,cb ,srpestness eloquence and power and mat q
| H. pe-,iett of Lowell who opposed u IN one oi y