Freligh v. AmesFreligh v. Ames
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Scott
delivered the opinion of the court.
Thе court in its discretion properly rеfused a continuаnce on the affidavit filed. The witness was late of this statе, was in another state, and there was a “ probability” that he would return.
As nonе of the defences set up in the аnswer were prоved, it was a matter of indifferencе whether the note was endorsed tо the plaintiff for value or not. If the nоte had been given to her, she might havе sustained this actiоn.
It is no defence to an action on a note against a secixrity that the security reqxxested the payеe to sxxe the рriixcipal *255and he refused. Under the statute there should hаve been notice in writing. Moreover, this court has held thаt an endorser оf a note negotiable is not á surety within the contemplation of the aсt concerning securities.
There wаs nothing about which tо make an argumеnt to the jury, and the court very proрerly limited the time to counsel for addressing them. This is matter in the discretion of the court and will not be controlled here.
Judgment affirmed with ten per cent, damages.
The other judges concur.