Court Opinion

ID: 3865048
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-06 08:58:44.432595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:31.255413
License: Public Domain

The defence to this suit is, that no legal and proper demand was made on the maker of the note; and that therefore the indorser, who is here sued, is discharged. The rule of the common law is, that in order to charge the indorser, *Page 261 
demand must be made on the maker for payment on the very day on which the note becomes due. In case the note on its face is made payable at a particular place, as at a bank named, it is necessary, and only necessary, to make demand at such place; but if no place of payment is named in the note at which the note is payable, it is necessary to present the note to the maker personally, or at his place of abode or business, before the indorser can be made chargeable. In this case, no place of payment was mentioned in the notes. The notes were left at the Mount Vernon Bank for collection; and it is agreed, that the maker had notice before the day of payment that they were there for that purpose. This notice could not avail to make the notes payable at said bank. The maker had not by the terms of his contract agreed to pay the notes at that bank; and a demand there was no demand upon him. It was necessary that demand should be made upon him personally, or at his dwelling, or place of business, on the last day of grace. No such demand was made, and the indorser therefore was never charged.
Judgment must therefore be rendered for the defendant, forhis costs.