TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Kramer v. M'Dowell

Kramer against M'Dowell

Kramer v. M'Dowell, 8 Watts & Serg. 138 (1844)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 15, 1844
Judges
Huston
Citations
8 Watts & Serg. 138
Headnotes
A notice of the protest of a bill of exchange to be given by one to another who resides in the same city, must be served personally or by leaving it at his house or place of business: depositing it in the post-office directed to him, is not sufficient.
Summary
ERROR to the District Court of Allegheny county. Allen Kramer against A. N. M’Dowell. This was an action to recover the amount of a bill of exchange drawn at Pittsburgh by William Seely on Benjamin Naglee of Philadelphia, for $250, payable to the order of the defendant, A. N. M’Dowell, forty days after date, who endorsed the same to the plaintiff. The bill was duly protested at Philadelphia for non-payment, and notice thereof to the drawer and endorsers forwarded by mail to the drawer at Pittsburgh, who enclosed the notice for the endorser, A. N. M’Dowell, and deposited it in the post-office at Pittsburgh, directed to him at that place, where he resided. The question was whether this was sufficient notice. The court below (Shaker, President) decided that it was not.

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

Opinion of the Court — Huston

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Huston, J.

The reports are full of cases as to what is or is not notice of the protest of a note or bill; and would seem to have gone as far as public convenience or private individual justice to the parties would require. These rules were made for mercantile or business men, who are in the habit of drawing notes or bills, and receiving letters by mail; and to apply them to a farmer, who never endorsed a note before, and does not receive a letter by mail once in three months, is hard enough, if not more than enough; but we are asked to go one step beyond all former cases. All of them say if the parties live in the same town the notice must be served on the person to be affected, personally or left at his house or place of business. The next step would be to let the notary put all notices to persons in the same city in the post-office, even where the person to be notified lived next door to him. We leave the rule as we found it; that in the same town or city, at least, unless when they become larger than Pittsburgh, the notice to be given by one inhabitant to another must be served personally or by leaving it at the house or place of business of the person to be notified.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1867–1868: 11887–1888: 118672026peak 1867 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Tanner v. Hughes53 Pa. 289 (1867)
  2. Cassidy v. Kreamer13 A. 744 (Pa. 1888)

Most recent

  1. Cassidy v. Kreamer13 A. 744 (Pa. 1888)
  2. Tanner v. Hughes53 Pa. 289 (1867)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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