Stoughton v. Swan
JOHN W. STOUGHTON v. THOMAS W. SWAN
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William J. Murray, Jr. (author), Heydeneeldt
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Murray
Mr. Ch. J. Murray delivered the opinion of the Court.
Mr. J. Heydeneeldt concurred.
No precise words or particular form is required in the notice to be given to the indorser of a promissory note or bill of exchange, of its dishonor.
It is sufficient if it appears, or can reasonably be inferred * from the notice, that the note or bill has [214] been duly presented for payment, and has been dishonored.
A notice that a note had been duly presented, etc'., and protested for non-payment, and that the holder looked to the indorser for payment of the same, is sufficient to put the indorser upon inquiry, which is all the law requires, and answers fully the reason and purpose of notice. The word protested has a definite legal signification, which should have been recognized by the Court below. In this case, the notice of protest was sufficient.
Judgment reversed with costs.