Case Name: Exrx. of Thomas Price vs. Wm. P. Young
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1821-05
Citations: 1 McCord 339
Docket Number: 
Parties: Exrx. of Thomas Price vs. Wm. P. Young.
Judges: Justices Bay, Mott, Huger and Johnson, concurred,
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 12
Pages: 339–342

Head Matter:
Exrx. of Thomas Price vs. Wm. P. Young.
Where a demand on the drawer of a bill of exchange cannot be made, the law does not dispense with notice to the indorser. The circumstances which prevent the demand and notice of non-payment, should still be given. And such notice should be given in as short a period after ascertaining that the demand could not be made, as if the demand had been made, viü. as soon as shall be conveniently practicable. ■ ' ' '
"Where tlie holder lived on James Island, and the drawer In Charlestow, and the note became due on the 26th October, and notice not giver: until the 10th of November, the Court Held, that the notice was not given in time.
np JLH1S was an action by the Executrix of tbe indorsee, against the indorser of a note» The note was made by Bryer to the defendant on the July, 1816, payable 26th October following. Bryer died in September, 1816, Price died in tbe Jane preceding. Notice was given to the defendant some day between the tenth and fifteenth of November. The plaintiff and her husband lived on James island and the defendant in town. There was some evidence' or admission that the plaintiff went to the lower end of the island to spend the summer.
The Question was the trite one of due diligence, which consists in a demand on the mater and notice to the in-dorser.
.The plaintiff attempted to excuse herself on the ground that the maker died just before the note became due, and left no legal representatives on wham the demand could he made ; -and that as a demand was not made, the notice was within sufficient and reasonable time.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. The case was brought up by the defendant on the ground that legal •jiotice had not been given. '

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Colcock
delivered the opinion of the court.
• Where a demand can not be made, the law does not dispense with notice. ' The circumstances which prevented it and the notice are still required. , It was the duty of the holder in this case, admitting that a demand could not have been made, to have given the defendant notice in as short a period after having ascertained that the demand could not be made, as she could have been required to do, if a demand had been made. Suppose the demand had been made on the 26th October, and no notice to the defendant had been given until the 10th or 15th of November, could this have been considered as a reasonable time, when the parlies were so contiguous to .each other as to have enabled the plaintiff to have given the notice in five hours, or at most in one day ? I presume not. The law is express that the notice shall be given as soon as shall be conveniently practicable. See the opinion of this court delivered by Justice Cheves in this case,. January term, 1818. (1 Nott & M'Cord, 438.) In some cases it becomes a question whether it was practicable to have given an earlier notice than that which is in proof, and this depends on the local situation of the parties and the means of communication. Here they were a few miles apart, and a daily communication between the places of their residence : So that if the rule is to be applied in any case, it must be in this.
The motion is granted.'
Justices Bay, Mott, Huger and Johnson, concurred,