HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0167 and id is 1 raw text is: SAUNDERSON V. JUDGE
SAUNDERSON AND OTHERS against JUDGE. Monday, May 18th, 1795.
A. makes a promissory note payable to B. or order, with a memorandum upon it that
it will be paid at the house of C. who is A.'s banker; in the course of business the
note is indorsed to C. In an action by C. against the indorser, it is not necessary
to prove an actual demand on A.(a).-If a note be made payable at a particular
house, a demand of payment at that house is as a demand on the maker (b).-The
putting a letter into the post-office to the indorser in proper time, informing him
that the maker has not paid a note when due, is sufficient evidence of notice to the
indorser (c).
This was an action on a promissory note, made by Sharp, to Wilkinson or order,
who indorsed it to Judge, be to Sanders and Co., and Sanders and Co. to Saunderson
and Co. bankers in Southwark, to cover acceptances which they had given on account
of Sanders and Co. At the foot of the note there was a memorandum by Sharp, that
he would pay it at the house of Saunderson and Co. with whom he had a cash account.
Some time before the note became due, Sharp had absconded, and on the day when
it was due, Saunderson and Co. wrote by the post to Judge, giving him notice of the
non-payment, and demanding payment of him, but there was no other evidence of the
notice, than the putting the letter into the post-office. They had made no previous
[510] demand on Sharp, not knowing where to find him, having directed several
letters to him at his usual place of abode, which were returned with the post-mark
upon them denoting that no such person was to be found, and believing him to be
insolvent, as he had kept an account with them, but had then no effects in their
hands The declaration was in the usual form by the indorsee against the indorser
of a promissory note, without stating that it was to be paid at the house of Saunderson
and Co. At the trial, the Plaintiffs were nonsuited on the ground that it was incum-
bent on them to prove an actual demand on the maker of the note. There was also
a doubt raised as to the consideration, but nothing turned upon it.
A rule having been granted to shew cause why there should not be a new trial,
Le Blanc, Serjt., shewed cause, contending that the nonsuit was proper ; first, because
the note was not presented to Sharp for payment by the Plaintiffs, and therefore the
averment in the declaration that it was so presented, was not proved ; and secondly,
because it was not proved that the Defendant received the letter which was put into
the post-office, advising him of the non-payment by Sharp.
Bond, Serjt., in favour of the rule, said that as by the terms of the note the money
was to be paid at the house of Saunderson and Co. it was there that it was to be
presented for payment. If Judge, instead of indorsing the note to Saunderson and
Co., had there demanded payment of it himself, it would have been sufficient; but as
it was indorsed to Saunderson and Co. they could not make a demand upon them-
selves, and Sharp was nowhere to be found. As to the proof of the averment in the
declaration, that the note was presented to Sharp for payment; in all actions on bills
of exchange and promissory notes, due diligence used by the holder to obtain payment
from the acceptor of the one, and the maker of the other, is evidence to support the
averment. With respect to the other objection, the putting the letter to Judge into
the post-office the day when the note became due, was clearly evidence of notice to him.
Per Curiam. It was no part of the contract in this case, that the note should be
paid at the house of Saunderson and Co., and therefore that was not necessary to be
stated in the declaration (a)2. But the maker merely appointed the house of his
(a)' [See the comments upon this case in Rowe v. Young, 2 B. & B. 175.]
(b) [See Pearse v. Pemberthy, 3 Campb. N. P. C. 261.]
(c) [Accord. Kufh v. Weston, 3 Esp. N. P. C. 54. But the direction of the letter
must be sufficiently particular. Walter v. Haynes, 1 R. & M. N. P. C. 149. Mann
v. Moors, 1 R. & M. 249.]
(a)2 [But where the particular place of payment is introduced into the body of the
note it becomes a part of the contract, Sanderson v. Bowes, 14 East, 500. Dickinson
v. Bowes, 16 East, 110. Rowe v. Bowes, 11 East, 112. 5 Taunt. 130, S. C. in error.
And so where the memorandum of payment was printed at the bottom of the note,
Lord Ellenborough held that it formed part of the contract, Tregothick v. Bdwin,
1 Stark. N. P. C. 468.]
2H. BL 510.
675](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0167&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)