Case Name: Aaron Sanger versus Brown Stimpson
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1811-10
Citations: 7 Tyng 260
Docket Number: 
Parties: Aaron Sanger versus Brown Stimpson.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 219–220

Head Matter:
Aaron Sanger versus Brown Stimpson.
Where the promisor in a note of hand had left the commonwealth before the maturity of the note, and the holder left a demand at his dwelling-house on the day the note fell due, and on the same day gave notice to the endorser that the note was unpaid, and requested payment, the endorser was held liable, although not informed of the absence of the promisor.
Assumpsit on a promissory note, dated the 12th day of July, 1808, made by one William Prentiss, by which he promised the defendant to pay him or his order one hundred and fifty dollars, isl foreign money, in ninety days, for value received, and an endorsement by the defendant to the plaintiff.
In the declaration there were two counts. In one, the plaintiff averred a demand on Prentiss, and notice to the defendant, the endorser. In the second count, the plaintiff averred due diligence to demand payment of Prentiss, and notice to the endorser.
At the trial on the general issue, before the Chief Justice, at the sittings here, after the last October term, the plaintiff proved that, nine days before the debt became due, Prentiss left his home, and went to one of the Southern States, and did not return until the month of December, after the note was payable; that on the day it becam3 due, he sent a written notice and request of payment to be delivered at Prentiss’s dwelling-house; but which did not *come to Prentiss’s knowledge; and on the same day he gave notice to the defendant, the endorser, that the note was not paid, and requested payment. —This notice to the endorser the defendant’s counsel objected to as insufficient, because the endorser was not informed of Prentiss’s absence, and that notice could not be given him. — The chief justice overruled the objection, and directed a verdict for the plaintiff, which was accordingly found. The defendant then moved for a new trial, on the ground of a misdirection of the judge, and the cause stood over for the consideration of that motion.
And now, at this term, Bigelow, of counsel for the defendant, urged the motion for a new trial, as well on the ground before suggested, as that the note was made payable in foreign money instead of cash, and so was not negotiable; and upon such a note an action cannot be maintained by an endorsee in this form.
Dana for the plaintiff.

Opinion:
But the Court
held the declaration good, and that the objection to the notice to the defendant was not well taken; and they ordered judgment to be entered on the verdict.