The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1868-10-30

s5rnrsr coURr-GrsrnAL rrnM-ohlef
J1stice Cartier and Justices Wylie and Olin
sat IN bGne yesterday, and decided the follow
ing cases;
tract for which the Endorsed note is given Ia
liable thereon after Its dishonor IL he then
promised to pay the same, even though no
actual demand on the maker or notice OF
dishonor to said indorser be proved on the
trial.
Hartman VS.. -Mofrett, This case comes up
argued and reported 10 this court a few days
ago. The court affirmed the judgment below,
Mr.. Justice DIN dissenting.
Mr.. Justice Wylie pronounced the judgment
Of the Court, in substance as follows The
pla lntiffs were partners, and claim that they
sold to the defendant and one =: House, who
bought the same Jointly. 6Iii Of lumber aaSr
the promissory note Of the said House, In
dorsed by Moffett at four months. The note
was dated the 10Th APT issS and %Ai mnde
1t fell due on the 18th OF August, when de-
msnd OF payment was made at the First Ma,
9n Bnk and two tSl,S s5 5se
sent by mail to the maker and indorser d..
Teeied to the cashier of the First National
Bank of Alexandria, through whom 1t had
been doubtless sent for collection, and whose
name as cashier was also on the BACK oil the
note.
The declaration contains one count on de.
PENDANTS Endorsement, AMI AYERS due demand
made on the maker for payment, and notice oil
non-payment given to the defendant, and the
note and protest are attached to the declara,
ton. 1t also contains count for goods sold
aud delivered to the amount OF the note and
more.
Defendant pleaded LIST, that he never was
| indebted as alleged; Cd, that he did not promise
| as alleged Sd, failure OF the consideration
| of said note, and that s622 so was all that
was duei 9Th, defendant claimed to reconp
| 1900 expended in transporting the lumber, the
sale and delivery OF the said lumber being the
consideration OF the note.
On the trial at the Circuit the PLAINTIFF gave
fnass to GS% nat hGy ,0a
credit was given to them Jointly, and received
| the promissory note In question In payment
OF said bill; that after the note had become
due the defendant promised to pay 1t, but sub
sequently refused to do so. and closed his case.
| ThCreupon defendants asked verdict on the
ground that neither the promissory note sued
nor proof OF demand and notice had been given
| to the Jury, but the Court refused to do so,
and the defendant thereupon excepted.
The Court in bGnc thought the court below
right In this, because the note and protes,
were attached to the declaration filed In the
case. But 1t further appears that on The
| crossexanination OF the defendants wit:
nesses, the note In question was produced and
proved. But the defendants then objected
that there Is no proofo of demand on the maker
and notice ol.non'paymcnt to the enlorser.
| The Court IN bdnC held that the promise to
| pay by the defendant was prinId tdCic evi
dehce of his liability that the note had been
| properly presented, dishonored, and due no
|
declRred this In 18th East, 23l. This doctrine
was entirely consonant with Thornton We
| Wynn, IL Wheaton, 1888, The Court N bGH'
| saw now error In the court below, allowing
the plaintiff to read to the jury note Or mem
orsndum, in the handwriting OF the defendant
tending to show that the lumber In question
| had been furnished on his ACCOUNT.
Judge Wylie then proceeded to consider
with great learning and ability, the eNcGp
lions to the charge OF the court below but thu
case turns substantially upon the question:
decided above. The Court held that Their
were no errors in the charge which were no
either harmless to the defendant, or more IA
yorable than he was entitled to have.
Judge Ulin disBcnted from some OF the view
OF the majority OF the court, He thought
pretty we'll settled law that, II the deiendan
we're sued as endUFser, he could not be sue
In any other cApacity-as an original party o
otherwise. The note given concluded the COZ
tract of sale, and was evidence OF its chaTa
ter. He did not concur that promise OF tn
endoFser to pay the note after maturity, Wa
even a primd tdcic evidence of the waive
OF the endorser's right to take notice OF III
I makers default unless the cndorseT W.
aware that he was discharged of his ohlig
ton to pay at the time he made the pFomls
such promise was void, rs made under = mi
apprehension of facts, and certainly could NJ
be m sde the foundation OF al action On prom
issAFy note,