Glasscock v. Bank of Missouri

• Decision Date: 31 January 1844
• Citation: 8 Mo. 443
• Parties: GLASSCOCK v. BANK OF MISSOURI.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

8 Mo. 443

GLASSCOCK

v.BANK OF MISSOURI.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January Term, 1844.

APPEAL FROM RAILS CIRCUIT COURT.

WILLIAM M. CAMPBELL, for Appellant. 1. The name of South having been erased by the plaintiff from the back of the bill of exchange in the possession of plaintiff, and he being not mentioned in the declaration, is to be considered as an entire stranger to the whole transaction, and a notice sent to him at Palmyra is of no more legal force and value than would have been a notice sent to any other citizen, or to any other town in Missouri. 2. There is no legal evidence that any legal notice of protest was ever served on Glasscock, or any other indorser to the bill of exchange. 3. The evidence proves that Stephen Glasscock's place of residence was in New London, and that that was his post-office, and the fact that he sometimes did business at Hannibal, and there received letters and newspapers, will not render that his post-office, in contemplation of law. 4. The notice of protest should have been mailed from St. Louis to Glasscock at his proper post-office, and not to South at Palmyra. 5. There is not satisfactory evidence that the notice was mailed in St. Louis by the first mail after protest, nor that the notices sent were copies of the notice given in evidence, and therefore the evidence on that subject was illegally admitted. 6. The grounds assumed by the court, in the instruction asked for by the Bank, were not warranted by the law of the land, under the circumstances of the case. 7. The court should have granted a new trial.

LEONARD and BAY, for Appellee. 1. It was unnecessary to claim “interest,” eo nomine, in the declaration. Interest on a bill or note is to be considered as damages for the detention of the principal debt, and is nothing more than a measure of damages. Bailey on Bills, 281; Du Belloix v. Waterpark, 1 D. and R. 16; Cameron v. Smith, 2 Barn. and Ald., 305. The indorser of a bill is liable to pay interest in the nature of damages, from the time he receives notice of the dishonor. Chitty on Contracts, 505; Story on Bills, 466. In assumpsit, the ground of action is the damages sustained by the plaintiff. 1 Chitty's Pl. 122.2. It was not necessary to prove the signatures of prior indorsers. The indorsement of a bill of exchange is an engagement on the part of the indorser that the signature of the drawer, and also of the antecedent indorsers, are genuine. Jones v. Ryde, 5 Term R. 488; Story on Bills, 126. 3. Notice of non-payment may be given by any party to the bill, or by the agent of the holder. Story on Bills, 454. Each successive indorser receiving notice has until the next day to send notice to antecedent parties; ibid. 453, 325-327; and such notice enures to the benefit of all other parties to the bill. Ibid. 341, 342. 4. Where the domicil of a party is in one town, and his place of business in another, notice may be sent to either, especially if the party is accustomed to receive notices and letters, at the post-office of each town. It is not indispensable for the notice to be sent to the post-office nearest to the residence of the party, nor even to the town in which he resides, if it be, in fact, sent to the post-office to which he usually resorts for his letters. Story on Bills, 260, 261, 332; Reed v. Paine, 16 Johns. R. 218; Catskill Bank v. Stall, 15 Wend, 364. 5. If the foregoing positions are correct, then the instruction given by the court contains a correct exposition of the law applicable to the facts in evidence, and the instructions asked by the defendant were properly refused.

NAPTON, J.

The Bank of Missouri brought suit against the appellant, as indorser of a bill of exchange for five hundred dollars, drawn by David O. Glasscock, in favor of William Moss, on Righter Levering, of St. Louis, and payable four months after date. The Bank obtained a judgment for $627 47. On the trial, objection was made to the introduction of the bill of exchange in evidence, because the last indorsement on the bill (subsequent to the...