President of the State Bank v. Hawley

Illinois Supreme Court

President of the State Bank v. Hawley

2 Ill. 580

DecidedDecember 15, 1839

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Ill. 580 (President of the State Bank v. Hawley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

President of the State Bank v. Hawley, 2 Ill. 580 (Ill. 1839).

Pincite

Opinion

Wilson, Chief Justice,

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This action was instituted by the Bank, against the defendant, Hawley, upon the following note, to wit,

“ $50Q, One hundred days after date, for value received, I promise to pay H. Hawley, Esq., or order, the sum of five hundred dollars; negotiable and payable at the Branch of the Bank of Illinois at Alton. J. Cheever, Jr.”

This note was assigned to the Bank on the same day it was made. The declaration is in the usual form, with an averment that Cheever, the maker of the note, was before the note became due, and ever since has continued to be, a non-resident of the State of Illinois, and beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. The case was submitted to the Court to be decided according to the law applicable to it; and it decided against the plaintiffs’ right to recover, upon the ground that the Bank had failed to give notice to the defendant, the assignor, that payment of the note had been demanded and refused at the Bank. This decision is erroneous. No such notice is necessary in order to charge the assignor of a note;—the rule is different from that applicable to bills of exchange.

The judgment must be reversed with costs, and the cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.

Note. See Butterfield v. Kinzie, Ante 445; Brown v. Knower, Ante 469; Armstrong v. Caldwell, Ante 546.

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

Wilson, Chief Justice,

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This action was instituted by the Bank, against the defendant, Hawley, upon the following note, to wit,

“ $50Q, One hundred days after date, for value received, I promise to pay H. Hawley, Esq., or order, the sum of five hundred dollars; negotiable and payable at the Branch of the Bank of Illinois at Alton. J. Cheever, Jr.”

This note was assigned to the Bank on the same day it was made. The declaration is in the usual form, with an averment that Cheever, the maker of the note, was before the note became due, and ever since has continued to be, a non-resident of the State of Illinois, and beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. The case was submitted to the Court to be decided according to the law applicable to it; and it decided against the plaintiffs’ right to recover, upon the ground that the Bank had failed to give notice to the defendant, the assignor, that payment of the note had been demanded and refused at the Bank. This decision is erroneous. No such notice is necessary in order to charge the assignor of a note;—the rule is different from that applicable to bills of exchange.

The judgment must be reversed with costs, and the cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.

Note. See Butterfield v. Kinzie, Ante 445; Brown v. Knower, Ante 469; Armstrong v. Caldwell, Ante 546.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Ill. 580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/president-of-the-state-bank-v-hawley-ill-1839.