Court Opinion

ID: 6410712
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-25 11:52:28.820005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:51:21.828279
License: Public Domain

Bigelow, J.
The note declared on, not being payable at a bank, or at any place where business was transacted during certain stated hours in each day, was properly presented to the maker at his place of residence. It was also the duty of the holder to present it within reasonable horns on the day of its maturity. No fixed rule can be established, by which to determine the hour beyond which a presentment, in such case, will be unreasonable and insufficient to charge an indorser. Generally, however, it should be made at such hour that, having regard to the habits • and usages of the community where the maker resides, he may be reasonably expected to be in a condition to attend to ordinary business. In the present case, taking into consideration the distance of the place of residence of the maker from Boston, where the note was dated, and where it was held when it became due; the means that were taken to ascertain the residence of the maker, and the season of the year at which the note fell due, we are of opinion that a presentment at nine o’clock in the evening was seasonable and sufficient. It is quite *455immaterial that the maker and his family had retired for the night. The question whether a presentment is within reasonable time cannot be made to depend on the private and peculiar habits of the maker of a note, not known to the holder; but it must be determined by a consideration of the circumstances which, in ordinary cases, would render it seasonable or otherwise. Barclay v. Bailey, 2 Campb. 527. Triggs v. Newnham, 10 Moore, 249, and 1 Car. & P. 631. Wilkins v. Jadis, 2 B. & Ad. 188. Cayuga County Bank v. Hunt, 2 Hill, (N. Y.) 635.

Exceptions overruled.