Court Opinion

ID: 4928002
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-09-24 00:59:30.218825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:13:34.481436
License: Public Domain

The opinion of the Court was by
Shepljest J.
This is a suit by the indorsee against an in-dorser of a promissory note, made on August 12, 1841, and payable in two years. Before it became payable the maker had deceased, an administrator had been appointed, the estate had been represented to be insolvent, commissioners of insolvency had been appointed and the holder of the note had proved it before them. When the maker of a note dies, before it becomes payable, the holder should make inquiry for his personal representative, if there be one, and present the note on its maturity to him for payment. The case of Hale v. Burr, 12 Mass. R. 86, may be considered as presenting an exception to this rule ; but doubts have been expressed, whether it could be considered as either correct in principle, or founded upon sufficient authority.
In this case the indorser may be considered as knowing, that the note would not be paid on presentment; and that the estate was insolvent. But such knowledge does not relieve the holder from his obligation to make presentment and give due notice of its dishonor. The promise of the indorser is a conditional one to pay, if the note be duly presented to the maker and seasonable notice be given to him of its dishonor.
*18The holder cannot assume the right to decide, that his performance of the condition will be of no service to the indorser, and thus put that matter in issue to relieve himself from the performance of the condition imposed upon him by law. Nicholson v. Gouthit, 2 H. Bl. 609 ; Clegg v. Cotton, 2 B. & P. 239; Prideaux v. Collier, 2 Starkie’s R. 57.
The various relations, which the parties, whose names are upon negotiable paper, sustain towards other persons, whose names are not upon it, cannot be anticipated.
The real debtors, who may feel obliged to pay, may not wish to exhibit themsélves as such. A deceased party may possibly have held a contract of some responsible person to pay in case the note should be duly presented for payment. So may an indorser. To hold an indorser liable and yet deprive him of the benefit of such a contract could not be justified. It is best for a commercial community that the rules be simple, subject to few exceptions, and not liable to be varied to meet the apparent injustice of particular cases. The notices given to the defendant in this case were either too early or too late to be of any avail.

Exceptions overruled.