Case Name: ZACK BRYANT v. W. H. COLEY
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1876-09
Citations: 1 Shan. Cas. 609
Docket Number: 
Parties: ZACK BRYANT v. W. H. COLEY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Cases with Notes and Annotations
Volume: 1
Pages: 609–609

Head Matter:
ZACK BRYANT v. W. H. COLEY.
Jackson,
September Term, 1876.
1. BILLS AND NOTES. Transferred after maturity, demand and notice to malee indorser liable.
The indorser of a past due note is liable for the payment thereof where the indorsee makes demand of payment in a reasonable time after such indorsement, and on failure of payment gives the indorser notice on the same or next day. [See note 20 under sec. 3205 of the Code. See Rosson v. Carroll, 6 Pickle, 90, and citations.]
Cited with approval as to what is a reasonable time: Union Bank v. Ezell, 10 Hum., 386.
2. PRACTICE. Affidavit for new trial based on newly discovered testimony, insufficient, when.
An affidavit tendered on -motion for a new trial proposing merely cumulative testimony, and without the affidavits of the witnesses showing that such proof could be made by them, is insufficient.

Opinion:
Freeman, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
Bryant indorsed a note after due to Coley. Coley sues him as indorser, and claims that he made demand of payment in a reasonable time after such indorsement, and on failure of payment gave notice to Bryant on- the same or the next day.'
There is conflict in the testimony on this question, but the jury have belieA^ed the plaintiff, and Ave see no cause to disturb their A'-erdict.
The charge of the court is correct, and in accord Avith the case of Union Bank a\ Fzell, 10 ITum., 386, as to what Avas a reasonable time in which to make demand of the makers of the note.
The affidavit tendered on motion for a new trial was not sufficient, as it aatis merely cumulative testimony proposed, and besides no affidavit of any one of the-Avitnesses referred to, showing that such proof could be made by them. On the whole the case Avas properly decided, and Ave affirm the judgment.