Farmers & Mechanics Bank v. Catlin
Opinion
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Five days before the maturity of the bill, the defendant, the drawer, gave to the plaintiffs, the holders, a mortgage to secure the payment of this and other bills, four months afterwards. It has been often decided that the 1 legal effect of such a promise, at such a time, is a waiver of demand on the acceptor. It is presumed to have been made by the drawer, from a consciousness that he had no funds in the acceptor’s hands, and therefore a demand is useless. In such case, this showing satisfies the usual averments of demand and notice. Both these points were decided in Norton v. Lewis, 2 Conn. R. 478.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
13 Vt. 39 (Farmers & Mechanics Bank v. Catlin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.