Case Name: Beale and others vs. Parish and others
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1857-03-02
Citations: 24 Barb. 243
Docket Number: 
Parties: Beale and others vs. Parish and others.
Judges: 
Reporter: Barbour's Supreme Court Reports
Volume: 24
Pages: 243–248

Head Matter:
Beale and others vs. Parish and others.
Where the holder of a note, on its arriving at maturity, uses due diligence to ascertain the residence of the indorser, and sends notice of protest to the place designated as such, he will be entitled, as such holder, to recover against the indorser; although in fact, owing to misinformation, the notice was not sent to the right place. And a second indorser, who subsequently pays the amount of the note, to the holder, and thus becomes the owner thereof, stands in the shoes of the holder, and is subrogated to his rights. And this, although he himself knew where the indorser resided, at the time notice of protest was sent.
Thus, where the plaintiffs, being the holders of a note, before it fell due indorsed and transferred it to the 0. Bank, and T., the notary of the bank, at the maturity of the note, demanded payment of it, and the next day inquired at the C. Bank where the first indorser resided, and was told they did not know; and he then gave the plaintiffs notice of non-payment and inquired of theih where he should send notice to the first indorser, and was told that he resided either at Dunkirk or Buffalo, and was requested by them to send notice to him ar both of those places, which was done accordingly; although the indorser ir fact resided at 0., and the plaintiffs knew that fact; upon the plaintiffs subse quently paying the note, at the bank, and becoming the.holders thereof; it was held that they could maintain an action thereon, against the first indorser. Peabody, J., dissented.
APPEAL by the defendants, from a judgment entered at a special term. The action was upon a promissory note, by indorsees against an indorser. The facts will be found in the opinion of Peabody, J.
P. G. Clark, for the appellants.
J. C. T. Smidt, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Roosevelt, P. J.
The bank having discounted the note became the holder of it; and the bank as such holder having used due diligence to ascertain the residence of the indorser, and having sent notice of "protest to the place designated (although erroneously) as the residence of the indorser, was entitled as such holder to recover against the indorser. The plaintiffs, who paid the bank, (there being no pretense of intentional misrepresentation on their part,) stand in the shoes of the bank, and are subrogated to their rights.
The judgment of the special term, (Morris, J.,) in favor of the plaintiffs, should be affirmed with costs.
Davies, J. concurred.