clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Alexander's British statutes in force in Maryland. 2d ed., 1912
Volume 194, Page 871   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

9 & 10 W. 3, CAP. 17, BILLS OF EXCHANGE. 871
tation of the note is, in general, equivalent to no demand, Nailor v. Bowie
supra). Accordingly, in several cases, of* which Graham v. Sang- 639
ston, 1 Md. 59, is the principal one, a protest merely stating the sending
of notices to the indorsers that they were severally held liable for the
payment of the note, has been held insufficient because it did not state
the facts of demand and non-payment. So also a notice is insufficient,
which only informs the indorsers that the note had not been paid, and
that they would be held answerable for the payment, unless, indeed, the
note, by its terms, is made payable and remains at a bank for collection
(when no demand of payment is necessary, for the failure of the maker
to go and pay it is the dishonour of the note, Graham v. Sangston supra);
but even then it must be shewn that the note was in point of fact at the
bank on the day it fell due, Hunter v. Van Bomhorst, 1 Md. 504; and a
notice in the terms of that in Graham v. Sangston is bad, even where the
note is made payable at a bank, Farmers' Bank v. Bowie, 4 Md. 290. So
it must appear of what the notice consisted, and how it was sent, for a
mere direction, of a notice, without a statement of its deposit in the accus-
tomed or a proper channel of transmission within the time limited by
law, is not enough, ibid., and see Whiteford v. Burckmeyer supra. And it
is, of course, necessary that the time of the demand should appear, and
that it was made at the proper place, Nailor v. Bowie, 3 Md. 251. If
notice be not given to one of two joint payees and indorsers, it was
decided in the Peoples' Bank v. Keech, 26 Md. 521, that the other would
be thereby discharged.
In Staylor v. Ball, 24 Md. 183, the Court said, that as to notes pay-
able without reference to any particular place, the general rule is, that a
demand must be made of the maker, or at his residence or place of busi-
ness (if he has one or it is known) within the city or place where the
note is payable. If there be no certain place identified and appointed
other than a city at large, and the party has no residence there, the bill
may be protested in the city, on the day, without inquiry, for that would
be an idle attempt. The general principle is, that due diligence (which is,
ordinarily, a mixed question of law and fact, but which is a question of
law where a state of facts is given or assumed) must be used to find
the parties and make the demand. The presumption is, that the maker re-
sides where the note is dated, and that he contemplates payment there.
But it is only presumption, and if the maker resides elsewhere within the
State when the note falls due, and that is known to the holder, demand
must be made at the maker's place of residence; and see Williams v.
Brailsford, 25 Md. 126. And so; if the holder does not know the residence
of an indorser, he may excuse his failure to give notice of the dishonour of
a bill or note to such an indorser, by shewing that he used reasonable dili-
gence in the effort to ascertain the residence of the indorser, but without suc-
cess; and, on the other hand, if, upon inquiry of persons from whom he has
fair reason to believe that he can obtain correct information on the subject,
he does receive information which he credits and acts upon, he is also ex-
cused; see Lambert v. Ghiselin, 9 How. 552. In Sasscer v. Whitely, 10 Md.
98, a demand at the post-office (though by local custom, it is usually made
there, and at the court-house) of a note dated at Baltimore and notice ad-
dressed to the indorser at Baltimore, where the notary was unable to

 
clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Alexander's British statutes in force in Maryland. 2d ed., 1912
Volume 194, Page 871   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  Cannot perform flastmod(): Win32 Error Code = 2

Maryland State Archives