Case Name: Whittington vs. The Farmers Bank of, &c.
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1825-06
Citations: 6 H. & J. 548
Docket Number: 
Parties: Whittington vs. The Farmers Bank of, &c.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the General Court and Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland, form 1800 ... [to 1826]
Volume: 6
Pages: 548–549

Head Matter:
Whittington vs. The Farmers Bank of, &c.
Appeal from Worcester county court. In fhe report oi-this case in 5 Harr. Johns. 499, a mistake has occurred, in a part of the court’s opinion delivered on the third bill of exceptions, which R is deemed proper to correct. In that bill of exceptions it is stated, that the plaintiffs below, (the appellees.) having read in evidence the promissory note, on which the action was instituted, offered in evidence a protest of the note, made by anotary public. To which the defendant objected, on the ground that the protest appeared to have been made at the request of The Farmers Bank of Somerset and Worcester, instead of The President and Directors of the Farmers Bank of Somerset and Worcester, (the corporate name of the plaintiffs, and by which name they brought their action.) This objection the court below overruled, and the defendant excepted, &cu The following is the corrected opinion of this court as delivered by
It is no object!» on to a protest of a promissory note, that it is stated to have been made at the request of The Farmers Bank of, &e. instead of The President, &c. the corporate name
The protest of a promissory note is not evidence of it* beif in chief of the ihet of a demand on the drawer. If Hhe notary public was dead, tire case would be governed ?jy different eonádera^iom.

Opinion:
Dorsey, J.
This court concur with the court below in the opinions expressed by them in the 1st, 2d, 4th, &c. bills of exceptions; but they think, that though the court did right in not sustaining the objection made by the appellant to the form of the protest, set out in the third bill of exceptions, there was error in permitting it to go to the jury. We hold it to be clear, that the protest of a promissory note is Slot evidence of itself in chief of the fact of demand j and as there is no parol proof of a demand set forth in tin; exception, it is difficult to conceive that the protest was produced for any other purpose than proving a demand on the drawer. If the notary public had been dead, and this fact appeared by the record, the case would have been governed by different considerations. We are of opinion that tlje Judgment of the court below must be
JUDGMENT REVERSED, AND PROCEDENDO AWARDED.