Case Name: Falk & Company vs. Rothschild
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1878-08
Citations: 61 Ga. 595
Docket Number: 
Parties: Falk & Company vs. Rothschild.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 61
Pages: 595–597

Head Matter:
Falk & Company vs. Rothschild.
1. In a suit against the indorser of a promissory note payable at a chartered bank, proof of notice of non-payment is a part of the plaintiff’s case, and is a condition precedent to recovery, whatever may he the defendant’s plea, or even if there is no plea. 18 Ga., 518; Code, §2781.
2. A national hank is a chartered hank within the’ meaning of section of the Code 2781, on the subject of notice and protest.
8. The court did not err in ordering a non-suit.
Indorsement. Promisory notes. Banks. Non-suit. Before Judge Tompkins. McIntosh Superior Court. October Term, 1877.
Falk & Company brought complaint against Eva Rothschild as maker, and Henry Rothschild as indorser, of two promisory notes, one payable at the Merchants’ National Bank of Savannah, and the other at the Southern Bank of the State of Georgia. Across the' face of each note was written, “Noted and protested for non-payment. August 9th, 1871. (Signed) Jno. L. Hammond, Notary Public! The defendant pleaded non est factum.
The plaintiffs proved the execution and indorsement of the notes, introduced the same in evidence and closed. Henry Rothschild moved a non-suit upon the ground that no notice of non-payment or of protest to him was shown.
The plaintiffs then offered to prove the handwriting of John L. Hammond, which appeared on the face of the notes. The court stated that it would consider such proof in, but would nevertheless grant the non-suit, and so did as to the indorser. To this plaintiffs excepted.
A. P. & S. B. Adams, for plaintiffs in error,
cited 15 Ga., 197; acts of 1826, p. 38; 1 Chitty’s Pl’gs, pp. 222-’3; 3 Ga., 185, 192; 56 Ib., 200 ; 55 Ib., 236.
R. E. Lester, for defendant,
cited 34 Ga., 435; 30 Ib., 32; 15 Ib., 197; Code, §2774; 1 Par. Notes & Bills, 293; 2 Wheat., 66; Code, §§1950, 2774, 2781; 26 Ga., 241; 19 Ib., 305, 310; 41 Ib., 614; 46 Ib., 491; 9 Ib., 303-’6; 4 Ib., 106; Code, §3829.

Opinion:
Bleckley, Justice.
The indorser's liability upon "bank paper" is conditional, and does not become fixed absolutely until the required notice has been given. The proof of notice is a part of the plaintiff's case. Though the national banks, established and doing business within this state, are chartered by the United States, and not by Georgia, they-are within the reason and spirit of section 2781 of the Code. They are "chartered banks." Because some of our penal legislation does not apply to them, it does not follow that they are not within civil statutes regulating the making and enforcing of contracts. In so far as the legislation of congress has not furnished the law of their transactions, or of contracts and col lections with which other parties connect them, the local legislation may be brought to bear. Notice to indorsers of paper payable at these national banks, has not been dispensed with by any statute of the United States. It is needless to say that mere noting and protesting, is not giving notice. If the evidence which was offered proved anything, it was only that the indorsed notes had been noted and protested. A non-suit as to the indorser was properly granted.
Judgment affirmed.