Case Name: FRAZIER v. JOHNSTON
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1832-10
Citations: 1 Wright 131
Docket Number: 
Parties: FRAZIER v. JOHNSTON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases at law and in chancery, decided by the Supreme court of Ohio, during the years 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834.
Volume: 1
Pages: 132–132

Head Matter:
FRAZIER v. JOHNSTON.
Negotiable notes — demand of payer — notice to endorsee.
The act of 1820 does not dispense with notice to an endorser of a negotiable note, though as to some paper, it may prescribe what shall be dm diligence in making a demand of the maker.
Assumpsit against the defendant as endorser of a promissory note of King and McLure, payable in six months from the 14th February, 1829. It is averred in the declaration, that on the 14th August, 1829, the plaintiff demanded payment of the drawers, and gave the defendant notice. Plea, the general issue.
On the trial, the note was read in evidence, and proof made of a demand of the makers, five days after the note fell due. No notice was given to the defendant, but the makers were prosecuted in Virginia to judgment and execution. The defendant is a young and single man ; his parents were living in the same town with the plaintiff.
J. Peck, for the plaintiff,
asked the Court to instruct the jury that under the Ohio statute no notice was necessary to an endorser ; 22 O. L. 322.
W. B. Hubbard, contra.

Opinion:
WRIGHT, J.
We think the statute does not dispense with notice to an endorser. The act referred to, on certain kinds of paper, may possibly enlarge the time for a demand of the drawer, and dispense with a prosecution of the drawer to insolvency. So far, the act may settle what shall be due diligence; but the act is silent as 132] *to the notice; because, as we suppose, it was not intended to alter the law merchant in that particular. The defendant is entitled to a verdict.
Verdict accordingly, and judgment for the defendant.