Schlatter v. Rector's Adm'r
| Decision Date | 31 May 1823 |
| Citation | 1 Mo. 286 |
| Parties | SCHLATTER v. RECTOR'S ADM'R. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
M'GIRK, C. J.
This was an action on an endorsed promissory note, by Schlatter, endorsee, against Rector, the endorser. By law, the endorsee may sue the endorser on presentation to the maker and failure to pay. The Legislature passed an act, declaring that after the 7th January, 1822, no such action should be brought by the endorsee till he had first sued the maker.
If this note was endorsed by Rector, and duly presented for acceptance or payment, and protested before the taking effect of the act, so as to fix the condition, we are of opinion that the Legislature could not impose new conditions on the endorsee. To require him to sue the maker first would be to suspend his right entirely for a time; the act would be retrospective, and would impair the value of the contract most materially.(a)
But it is insisted that there is no sufficient averment in the plaintiff's declaration to show the endorsement was made before the taking effect of the statute. The declaration alleges the note was made on the 4th of August, 1821, and payable ninety days after date. Then it states, under a videlicit, that afterwards, on the same day, it was endorsed; and then it alleges that afterwards, when the note became due and payable, according to the tenor and effect thereof, to-wit: on the 5th November, 1821, the said note, so endorsed as aforesaid, was presented to the maker for payment, and he refused.
It is admitted that, if it appears by the declaration the note was endorsed before the 5th of November, 1821, then the endorsement was in time to save it from the operation of the statute. It is argued that the time laid under the videlicit might be varied by proof. The law is, that where time is material, a videlicit will make it neither better nor worse; but the party will be bound to prove all material allegations, as laid; there the allegations, that when the note became due it was presented for payment, are material, and no proof of a subsequent or previous presentation would satisfy this averment; and also the allegation that, when thus presented for payment, it was endorsed by Rector to Schlatter, must have been proved to be true. These allegations are sufficiently explicit to show the endorsement was made before the taking effect of the act.
The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed with costs, &c., and one per cent. damages, with legal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kuntz v. Tempel
...it was presented for payment, was a material averment, and no proof of a previous or subsequent presentation would satisfy it.” (Schluter v. Rector, 1 Mo. 286.) (2) To make such alleged certificate of protest prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated, it should have been filed at lea......
- Emmons v. Gille