Case Name: Administrators of Conn v. Executors of Gano
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1824-12
Citations: 1 Ohio 484
Docket Number: 
Parties: Administrators of Conn v. Executors of Gano.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases decided in the supreme court of ohio : upon the circuit at the special sessions in Columbus
Volume: 1
Pages: 484–486

Head Matter:
Administrators of Conn v. Executors of Gano.
Note —Demand—Averment.
■When a note or bill is made payable at a certain time and place, no demand' is necessary to charge the maker or acceptor.
Averment of demand, though immaterial, must be proved.
This action was founded upon two promissory notes, in which, the defendants’ testator promised at a day certain to pay a sum of money to the intestate of the plaintiffs. The notes contained the words “ negotiable and payable at the Bank of Cincinnati.”
Each count of the declaration contained an averment, that, the-note when due “ was presented at the said Bank of Cincinnati, being then and there due and payable, according to the terms thereof,, for payment,” and alleges non-payment. On the trial, the plaintiffs offered no evidence of this fact, and the defendants objected that without proof of the averment the plaintiffs could not recover; but the court permitted th.e cause to proceed, reserving the point. A verdict was found for the plaintiffs, and a motion made for a new trial on the ground of misdirection. This motion was reserved for-decision here.
Este, for the defendants :
It is settled in England, that where a note is made payable at ® particular place, a demand of payment must be made at that place,, and alleged in the declaration, in order to sustain the action. Chitty on Bills, 321; 14 East, 500.
The cases of -, -, 8 Mass. 480, and Foden v. Sharp, 4 Johns. 183, seem to indicate a different doctrine; but in the cases of Berkshire Bank v. Jones, 6 Mass. 226, and Woodbridge v. Brigham, Id. 556, 560, *it is decided that the plaintiff must show that on the day of payment the note was in the bank, and that the servants of the bank were there during bank hours, ready to> .receive payment and give up the note.
Longworth, contra,
cited 17 Johns. 242.

Opinion:
By the Court :
The plain interpretation of a promise to pay a sum of money at a certain place upon a certain day, is, that the person making the promise will on the day be at the place with the money ; if he be not there, or does not have the money there, he has not performed his promise. The right of the plaintiff to receive the money does not depend upon his making a demand. It is absolute by the very terms of the promise. If the defendant is ready at the time and place to pay the money, and there is no person there to receive it, his promise is not broken ; the duty to pay the money remains, but no action can be sustained to recover it until a subsequent personal demand be made. This is the plain justice of the case, and is in accordance with the American decisions, which we prefer to follow. It was, therefore, not necessary for the plaintiffs to aver a demand at the'place to maintain their action on these notes.
They have, however, made this averment, and though unnecessary, it is well settled, that being made it must be proved. In an action against the drawer or indorser of a bill, it is not necessary to state that the drawee accepted it; but Chitty says, if it be stated, it must, in an action against the drawer, be proved — p. 459. And in page 514, it is again said, that whenever a particular presentment has been averred, it must be proved; for this reason a new trial must be granted.