Veazie Bank v. Winn

An action, against the maker of a note payable at a bank, commenced on the last day of grace, without evidence of a prior demand at a reasonable hour on that day, or that the suit was commenced after the business hours at the bank, is premature.

Assumpsit. These suits were against the makers of promissory notes, dated at Bangor, Sep. 18, 1854. One of the notes read thus : — “ Two months after date, value received, I promise to pay E. Paulk or order, four thousand dollars at the Veazie Bank.” The other thus: — “ Two months after date, value received, I promise to pay D. E. Loavett or order, twenty-one hundred dollars, at either bank in Boston.” The general issue was pleaded. Tho payees indorsed the notes and they were discounted by plaintiffs. These suits wore commenced on Nov. 21, 1854. After the notes and indorsements were read to the jury, the causes were withdrawn by consent, and submitted to the decision of the full Court upon the evidence, the writs making a part of tho case, to render judgment by nonsuit or default, according to the legal rights of the parties. Some evidence was introduced by defendant which had no bearing on tho ground of the decision. argued that these actions were premature, there being no evidence of a previous demand, and no evidence at what time of the day the writs were made; and cited Greeley v. Thurston, 4 Greenl. 479 ; Flint v. Rogers, 15 Maine, 67 ; Staples v. Franklin Bank, 1 Met. 43.