Harrisburg Trust Co. v. Shufeldt

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Washington

Harrisburg Trust Co. v. Shufeldt

78 F. 292, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 2464

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Washington

DecidedJanuary 23, 1897

StatusPublished

This text of 78 F. 292 (Harrisburg Trust Co. v. Shufeldt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harrisburg Trust Co. v. Shufeldt, 78 F. 292, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 2464 (circtdwa 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

HANFORD, District Judge.

This is an action to recover a balance due after deducting partial payments upon a negotiable promissory note, made payable on demand. The defendant has demurred to the complaint, his contention being that the same is insufficient, for failure to allege a demand prior to the commencement of the action. There is a rule of long standing, and supported by the weight of authority in this country, that the commencement of an action is itself a demand, and that failure to request payment, prior to the commencement of the action, affords no ground of defense. Bank v. Fox, Fed. Cas. No. 2,683; 5 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 528z4G. It is insisted, however, that the courts and the text-books in this country have fallen into error by following early decisions, which were controlled by peculiar facts, and which are insufficient of themselves to establish a general rule upon.the subject. It is unwise to depart from business customs and practices which have been sanctioned by repeated decisions of courts, and acquiesced in for a considerable time, and which may fairly be supposed to have been contemplated by the parties at- the time of making their contract. This contract must be construed as one having been made subject to the rule above stated, and the maker of the note is, by the terms of his contract, liable without any demand, prior to the commencement of an action. Demurrer overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HANFORD, District Judge.

This is an action to recover a balance due after deducting partial payments upon a negotiable promissory note, made payable on demand. The defendant has demurred to the complaint, his contention being that the same is insufficient, for failure to allege a demand prior to the commencement of the action. There is a rule of long standing, and supported by the weight of authority in this country, that the commencement of an action is itself a demand, and that failure to request payment, prior to the commencement of the action, affords no ground of defense. Bank v. Fox, Fed. Cas. No. 2,683; 5 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 528z4G. It is insisted, however, that the courts and the text-books in this country have fallen into error by following early decisions, which were controlled by peculiar facts, and which are insufficient of themselves to establish a general rule upon.the subject. It is unwise to depart from business customs and practices which have been sanctioned by repeated decisions of courts, and acquiesced in for a considerable time, and which may fairly be supposed to have been contemplated by the parties at- the time of making their contract. This contract must be construed as one having been made subject to the rule above stated, and the maker of the note is, by the terms of his contract, liable without any demand, prior to the commencement of an action. Demurrer overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 F. 292, 1897 U.S. App. LEXIS 2464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrisburg-trust-co-v-shufeldt-circtdwa-1897.