Court Opinion

ID: 6421784
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-25 12:00:25.940605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:51:48.537800
License: Public Domain

W. Allen, J.
1. The signature of the defendant, which he did not deny in his answer, and expressly admitted at the trial, appeared to be to an indorsement of the note and a waiver of protest, and was prima facie evidence of both.
2. In the absence of evidence that a protest of the note was necessary to hold the indorser, and was a right upon which the indorser could insist, and therefore could waive, the court might well have found that the word “ protest,” as used by the defendant, meant notice; and that the defendant had waived notice of demand and refusal. See Brannon v. Hursell, 112 Mass. 63, 70; Coddington v. Davis, 3 Denio, 16; S. C. 1 Comst. 186.
3. It does not appear that anything was said in the conversation between the defendant and Cornish which would- be admissible as part of the res gestee, and which would not come within the common rule which excludes declarations.

Exceptions overruled.