George Magruder, Plaintiff In Error v. the Union Bank of Georgetown, Defendants In Error
| Decision Date | 01 January 1830 |
| Parties | GEORGE B. MAGRUDER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR v. THE UNION BANK OF GEORGETOWN, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
IN the circuit court of the district of Columbia, for the county of Washington, the defendants in error instituted a suit against George B. Magruder, the plaintiff in error, upon a promissory note drawn by George Magruder in favour of and indorsed by the plaintiff in error, dated Washington, November 8th, 1817, for six hundred and forty-three dollars twenty-one cents, payable seven years after date. After the making of the note, the drawer, George Magruder, died, and on the 18th of November 1822, administration of his effects was granted to George B. Magruder, the plaintiff in error. The note having been due on the 11th of November 1824, was not paid.
Upon the trial of the cause, the plaintiff, in support of the issue joined, offered in evidence to the jury the promissory note, issued the 18th of November 1823, the hand writing of the maker, and the indorsement by the defendant having been admitted; and further proved that the defendant had, previous to the note falling due, taken out letters of administration in the county of Montgomery, in the state of Maryland, upon the personal estate of George Magruder, the maker of the said note, on the 18th of November 1823; the said George Magruder having previously departed this life. It was admitted that the note in question had never been protested, nor had any notice been given to this defendant that the note was not paid. Upon these circumstances, the counsel for the defendant moved the court to instruct the jury, that before the plaintiff can recover in this action, it is essential for him to prove demand and notice to the indorser, of the non-payment; which not being done, the verdict should be for the defendant. But the court refused to give the instruction prayed for as aforesaid, and charged the jury, that no demand of notice of non-payment was necessary. To this refusal and instruction the counsel for the defendant excepted, and the court sealed a bill of exceptions, and this writ of error was prosecuted.
The case was argued by Mr. Coxe for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr Dunlop and Mr Key for the defendant.
Mr Coxe contended, that the fact that the indorser of the note had become the administrator of the drawer, did not release the holders of the note from any of the duties and legal obligations they were under, to give notice to the indorser of the non-payment of the note, and that payment was expected from him. The letters of administration were granted out of the district of Columbia; but if they had been issued within the district, the law would have been the same.
As a general rule, notice was necessary, and notice must come from the holder of the note, to apprise the party that he is looked to for payment. Chitty, 292.
The mere fact that the indorser had been the representative of the drawer, did not imply a knowledge of the non-payment of the note; and if it did, notice of its non-payment was not thereby dispensed with. Chitty, 293. 1 T. Rep. 167. 2 Con. Rep. 654. The legal obligations of an indorser become complete on notice, and are not such until notice.
The obligation to give notice has been declared to exist in a case in which, if it ever could be excused, it would have been waived under its circumstances. Where one person was a member of two partnerships, one of which signed, and the other of which indorsed, it was held, that presentment for payment was necessary to charge the indorser. Bayley on Bills, 159.
Mr Dunlop and Mr Key, for the defendant, admitted the general rule to be as stated by the counsel for the plaintiff in error; but exceptions had been allowed to the rule, and on the same principles, the present was entitled to exemption from its stricter application.
In the Bank of Columbia vs. French, 4 Cranch, 161, when this note was drawn for the use of the indorser, notice was not required. His knowledge that the obligation to pay was upon him, made the notice unnecessary.
The plaintiff in error, as administrator of the drawer, became the payer of the note, and as such was bound to do so without demand; no demand on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Auten v. Manistee National Bank
...the note did not dispense with the necessity of notice of dishonor by the holder. Benj. Chal. Bills and Notes, 182; Story, Bills, §§ 376-7; 3 Pet. 87; 7 Pet. 291; 16 S. & R. 157. The indorsement of appellant having been for accommodation, there is no presumption that the cashier communicate......
-
Pearson v. Washingtonian Pub. Co.
...a timely presentment and notification of dishonor. Roberts v. International Bank, 58 App.D.C. 87, 25 F.2d 214. See Magruder v. Union Bank of Georgetown, 3 Pet. 87, 7 L.Ed. 612. Residence for the statutory period is a prerequisite to an action for divorce. Winston v. Winston, 50 App.D.C. 321......
-
Grandison v. Robertson
... ... (M. F. Dirnberger, Jr., and ... George A. Orr, both of Buffalo, N.Y., of counsel), for ... defendants to recover certain payments claimed to have been ... defendants herein and the Rochester bank had refused to grant ... to the company further ... And the formal assignment of error reads that ... the judge erred 'in overruling ... In ... Magruder v. Union Bank of Georgetown, 3 Pet. 87, 7 ... ...
-
Orange Screen Co. v. Holmes
...or, as in the present case, funds may come into his hands available for his own protection. Chief Justice Marshall, in Magruder v. Union Bank, 3 Pet. 87, 7 L. Ed. 612, in discussing the failure to give notice of protest in a somewhat different aspect "It is possible that assets which might ......