Lunt v. Adams

17 Me. 230
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine
DecidedJune 15, 1840
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 17 Me. 230 (Lunt v. Adams) 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.

Bluebook
Lunt v. Adams, 17 Me. 230 (Me. 1840).

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was drawn up by

Shepeey J.

The most favorable position of the case for the plaintiffs is, that a demand was made about eight o’clock on the morning of the day upon which the note became payable, and payment not being then made a suit was immediately commenced. It was decided in the case of Greeley v. Thurston, 4 Greenl. 479, that a suit might be lawfully commenced on the day the bill- or note became payable after a demand had been made at a reasonable hour of the same day.

There may be little difficulty in towns and cities, where there are business or banking hours, in deciding, that a demand should be made during those hours. But in places, where no particular hours are known for making and receiving payments there is more difficulty in determining what would be a reasonable hour for this [232]*232purpose. It may often happen, that the party having a payment to make would appropriate the earlier part of the day to obtain the means, either by collecting, or by procuring a loan from a bank or from some person in a neighboring town. To establish a rule, that would deprive him of that opportunity and subject him to a suit; and that would render him liable to have his business broken up, while thus employed, might justly be regarded -as unreasonable. The general rule being, that the party has all the day to make his payment, that in relation to bills and notes should not be so varied as to prevent his having a fair opportunity to make arrangements and provide the means of payment before he is subjected to a suit. In this case the demand was made at an hour so early as to deprive him of that opportunity; and it was not therefore made at a reasonable hour.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Clough v. Holden
21 S.W. 1071 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 Me. 230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lunt-v-adams-me-1840.