Farmer v. Rand
This text of 16 Me. 453 (Farmer v. Rand) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The opinion of the Court was drawn up by
The Bank of Cumberland was entitled to one day, to give notice to prior parties. Notice on Tuesday, the fifth day of July, would have been seasonable; but a delay until Wednesday, the sixth, cannot be excused. If parties prior to them had notified earlier than might have been in strictness required, it [456]*456does not enlarge the time allowed by law to subsequent parties. Bayley, 271; Turner v. Leach, 4 B. & A. 454.
The effect and materiality of the alteration has been before decided. Farmer v. Band, 14 Maine R. 225. It was there held, that the waiver as it stands upon the note, apparently applies to and binds the defendant. It was sufficient for his purpose, to show that it was unauthorized. Unless therefore the proof was changed by testimony, on the part of the plaintiff, the objection was fatal, and the jury were properly instructed on this point.
Judgment on the verdict.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
16 Me. 453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farmer-v-rand-me-1840.