Case Name: Greenlee Butler, plaintiff in error, vs. The Marine & Fire Insurance Bank, defendant in error
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1855-07
Citations: 18 Ga. 517
Docket Number: No. 69
Parties: Greenlee Butler, plaintiff in error, vs. The Marine & Fire Insurance Bank, defendant in error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 517–518

Head Matter:
No. 69.
Greenlee Butler, plaintiff in error, vs. The Marine & Fire Insurance Bank, defendant in error.
[1.] Notes payable at a bank agency, are bankable paper, in contemplation of the Act of 1826 ; and before a recovery can be had of the indorser, demand and notice are necessary to be proven.
Assumpsit, &c. in Lee Superior Court. Tried before Judge' Worrell, December Adjourned Term, 1855.
'The plaintiff in error was sued as indorser upon the following note:
$1,100.
On the first day of January, 1852, I promise to pay Griffiin Smith or order, eleven hundred dollars, with interest from date, at the agency of The Marine & Eire Insurance Bank at Macon, for value received. This 4th January, 1851.
JNO. S. SUDDETH
Indorsed by Smith to Butler ; and by Butler to J. Olm-stead, Cashier.
On the appeal, plaintiff’s Counsel moved to strike out the plea of defendant, that he had never received notice of the non-payment of the note at maturity, on the ground that the note was not made payable, or intended to be negotiated, at a chartered bank. The Court struck out the plea, and this -decision is assigned as error.
R. F. Lyon, for plaintiff in error.
Hawkins, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
By the Court.
Lumpkin, J.
delivering the opinion.
In Beckwith and another vs. Carlton & Co. (14 Ga. Rep. 691) this Court held, that in order to charge the indorser of a note, payable at.the agency of one of the chartered banks of this State, a demand and notice were necessary. This case comes fully within that decision. And instead of favoring the banks, the very contrary is true. It is for the protection of indorsers.
Settle the rule, that the Act of 1826, requiring demand and notice on bankable paper, does not apply to notes payable at an agency, and every chartered bank in the State that has not dqne so already, will forthwith establish an agency to get rid of this burden.
The fact that the defendant confessed judgment on the first trial, by no means dispenses with the proof of notice on the appeal. It is an indespensable part of the plaintiff's case. Without proof of demand and notice, he is not entitled to recover.