Rodman v. Denison
This text of 21 Conn. 406 (Rodman v. Denison) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In this action, there were counts against the defendants, as indorsers of two promissory notes, made by one Randolph, together with the ordinary money counts.
The plaintiff was not able to prove any demand of the maker, Randolph, and, therefore, failed to sustain his special counts; but he did prove, that the notes were made by Randolph, and indorsed by himself, for the sole accommodation of the defendants, who had procured the money on them. [408]*408at the Mystic Bank; and that the plaintiff had paid the amount, which he recovered in this suit, to the bank, and the defendants had promised to repay it. This, surely, was enough to enable the plaintiff to recover, on the money counts, even if it did not excuse the want of demand on the maker.
The verdict was right, and no new trial is advised.
New trial denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
21 Conn. 406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodman-v-denison-conn-1851.