Case Name: A. B. Moore v. T. H. and G. B. Hollaman
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1860-10
Citations: 25 Supp. Tex. 81
Docket Number: 
Parties: A. B. Moore v. T. H. and G. B. Hollaman.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 25 Supp.
Pages: 81–83

Head Matter:
A. B. Moore v. T. H. and G. B. Hollaman.
A promissory note due “ one day after date” cannot bo sued upon until the second day after date.
Not being between merchant and merchant, it is not entitled to three days of grace. (Paschal’s Digest, Art. 234, Note 295; O. & W., Art. 99.)
The maker has the whole of the next day after date within which to pay his debt.
[Note.—It is the opinion of the Reporter, that every note, negotiable by indorsement or delivery, is entitled to three days of grace, whether between merchant and merchant, or not.]
Error from G-uadaloupe. The case was tried before Hon. A. W. Terrell, one of the district judges.
The appellees brought suit in the court below against the appellant upon a promissory note, which note is as follows:
“$1,124 50. Seguin, Texas, April 7,1859:
“ One day after date, I promise to pay T. H. & G. B. Hollaman, or order, eleven hundred twenty-four dollars "fifty cents, at Seguin, G-uadaloupe county, Texas, for value received, with ten per cent, interest, from January 1,1859.
“Due January 1, 1859. A. B. Moore.”
The petition was filed on the 8th day of April, 1859, and judgment taken by default 13th May, 1859. The appellant, Moore, petitioned for a writ of error and supersedeas, April, 19, 1860; and writs were issued April 20, 1860.
J. J. Thornton, for appellant.
—It was error to give judgment against the appellant in a suit brought before the note became due. Being made payable one day after date, thé note did not mature and become due on the 8th of April, 1859. (O. & W., Art. 411; Edwards on Bills and Promissory bTotes, 514; Chitty on Bills, 264 ; Hartford Bank v. Barry, 17 Mass., 94; Henry v. Jones, 8 Mass., 453; Hopping v. Quinn, 12 Wend., 517; Thomas v. Shoemaker, 6 Watts & Serg., 525.)
John Ireland, for appellees.

Opinion:
Roberts, J.
—The note was dated the 7th day of April, 1859, payable " one day after date," and suit was brought upon it by filing the petition on the 8th day of April, 1859. A judgment by default was rendered, and one of the errors assigned is, that " the record in this ease shows that this suit was prematurely brought, and that no right of action. had accrued to the plaintiffs against the defendants at the time of the institution of this suit; the promissory note on which the -suit is brought not being then due."
This objection is well taken. The note, though "negotiable and assignable by law," was not shown to have been a " contract between merchant and merchant, their factors or agents." (O. & W. Dig., Art. 99; Paschal's Dig., Art. 236.) Three days of grace not being allowed, it was due on the '8th day of April, 1859. The maker had the whole of that day within which to pay his debt. The case is not involved in any question of demand and protest on that day. It is therefore clear, that no right of action did accrue until after the expiration of that day. (Edwards on Bills and Promissory Notes, 527, and Note; 3 Wend., 170 ; 8 East., 168.)
" In computing the time when hills and notes, payable a certain number of days, months, or years after date, become due, the rule is, to exclude the day of the date from the calculation, and include the day of payment, assuming that no days of grace are allowed." (Edwards on Bills, 514; Ohitty on Bills, 370.)
The judgment must he reversed, and the cause
Dismissed.