Morgan v. Van Ingen
2 Johns. 204
Opinion
The defendant, as a notary, was bound only to demand payment of the note, and to make his protest in case of non-payment. It was no part of his official duty to give the notice to the indorsers. His special undertaking to Atlcinson, that he would give such notice, will not enure to the benefit of the plaintiff. The promise was to Atlcinson, who has no further claim or demand, nor any cause of action against the defendant, since he has been paid the full amount of the note.
Rule refused.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Morgan v. Van Ingen, 2 Johns. 204 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1807).
2 Johns. 204 (Morgan v. Van Ingen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Rogers v. Mullins
63 S.W. 897 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1901)
Costello v. Knight
15 D.C. 65 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1885)
Westfall v. Farwell
13 Wis. 504 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1861)
Platt v. McClure
19 F. Cas. 845 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine, 1847)
Fitler v. Morris
6 Whart. 406 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1841)
Kelley v.Hurlburt
5 Cow. 534 (New York Supreme Court, 1826)
Mead v. Engs
5 Cow. 303 (New York Supreme Court, 1826)