TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Norris v. Ward

Norris v. Ward.

Norris v. Ward, 59 N.H. 487 (1879)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of New Hampshire · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 5, 1879
Judges
Smith, Foster
Citations
59 N.H. 487
Headnotes
A promise to pay, made by an endorser of a negotiable promissory note after its dishonor, is not a waiver of the consequences of a want of demand upon the maker and notice to the endorser, unless he knew there had been no demand and notice when he made the promise.
Summary
Assumpsit, on a negotiable promissory note payable to the defendant and endorsed by him to the plaintiff before maturity. Facts found by a referee. 1. There was no demand of payment upon the maker and notice of the dishonor to the defendant such as is required by the law merchant to fix the liability of an indorser. 2. After the dishonor, the defendant promised the plaintiff to pay the note. 3. At the time of making the promise the defendant knew that he had not received due notice of the dishonor of the note. 4. At the time of making the promise he did not know that by the law he was discharged from liability on the note by reason of the want of notice to him of the dishonor.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Smith

Smith, J.

It does not appear that the defendant, when he promised to pay the note after its dishonor, knew that no demand had been made upon the maker at the maturity of the note. In order to render his promise effectual, he must have known that no demand had been made.

Ladd v. Kenney, 2 N. H. 340;

Otis v. Hussey, 3 N. H. 346;

Whitney v. Abbott, 5 N. H. 379;

Farrington v. Brown, 7 N. H. 271;

Woodman v. Eastman, 10 N. H. 366;

Bank v. Brown, 12 N. H. 325;

Caldwell v. Porter, 17 N. H. 27;

Rogers v. Hackett, 21 N. H. 100;

Edwards v. Tandy, 36 N. H. 544;

Hopkins v. Liswell, 12 Mass. 52 ; 3 Kent Com. 113.

Judgment on the report for the defendant.

Foster, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1887: 118872026peak 1887 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Rochester Savings Bank v. Chick13 A. 372 (N.H. 1887)

Most recent

  1. Rochester Savings Bank v. Chick13 A. 372 (N.H. 1887)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Hopkins v. Liswell, 12 Mass. 52 (1815) 11

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list