History
  • No items yet
midpage
King v. Hurley
85 Me. 525
Me.
1893
Check Treatment
Emery, J.

This was an action by an indorsee against the indorser of a promissory note. At the maturity of the note, payment was duly demanded of the maker, and was refused, and notice thereof was seasonably sent to the defendant indorser. The defendant makes but two objections to the notice. First, that it did not state who were the other indorsers of the note. Second, that it misstated the amount of the note.

The defendant, however, does not show that he was in the least misled or confused by the omission, or by the mistake. On the contrary it clearly appears that he understood the notice to refer to the note in suit. He was, therefore, fully informed of the dishonor of this note and that the holder looked to him for payment. This was sufficient to fix his liability. Cayuga Co. Bank v. Warren, 1 N. Y. 413. Exceptions overruled.

Libbey, Foster, Haskell and Whitehouse, JJ., concurred. Peters, C. J., did not sit.

Case Details

Case Name: King v. Hurley
Court Name: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Date Published: Jul 25, 1893
Citation: 85 Me. 525
Court Abbreviation: Me.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.