Salter v. Burt

20 Wend. 205
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1838
StatusPublished
Cited by36 cases

This text of 20 Wend. 205 (Salter v. Burt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Salter v. Burt, 20 Wend. 205 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1838).

Opinion

By the Court, Bronson, J.

This check, having been post dated, was payable on the day of its date, without any days of grace. Mohawk Bank v. Broderick, 10 Wendell, 304. 13 id. 133. It fell due on Sunday, and the question is whether the demand of payment was well made on the previous Saturday, or whether it should have been made on the following Monday. When days of grace are allowable on a bill or note and the third day falls on Sunday, the bill or note is payable on the previous Saturday. The same custom of merchants which, as a general rule, allows three days of grace to the debtor, has limited that indulgence to two days in those cases where the third is not a day for the transaction of business. But when there are no days of grace, and the time for payment or performance specified in the contract falls on Sunday, the debtor may, I think, discharge his obligation on the following Monday. This question was Very [207]*207fully considered in Avery v. Stewart, 2 Conn. R. 69, which was an action on a note, not negotiable, which fell due on Sunday $ and the court held that a tender on Monday was a good bar to the action. I agree to the doctrine laid down by Could, J.s that Sunday cannot, for the purpose of performing a contract, be regarded as a day in law, and should, as to that purpose, be considered as stricken from the calendar. In computing the time mentioned in a contract for the doing of an act, intervening Sundays are to be counted, but when the day for performance falls on Sunday, it is not to be taken into the computation. The check was presented before it became payable, and the demand and notice jlere consequently insufficient to charge the endorser.

Judgment for defendant.

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

Related

State v. DeNicola
163 Ohio St. (N.S.) 140 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1955)
In re Yanof
18 F. Supp. 587 (N.D. Illinois, 1937)
Lamson v. Andrews
40 App. D.C. 39 (D.C. Circuit, 1913)
Styles v. Dickey
134 N.W. 702 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1912)
Ryer v. Prudential Insurance
85 A.D. 7 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1903)
In re Stevenson
94 F. 110 (D. Delaware, 1899)
Evans & Hollinger v. Chicago & Alton Railway Co.
76 Mo. App. 468 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1898)
Morris v. Bailey
74 N.W. 443 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1898)
Monroe Cattle Co. v. Becker
147 U.S. 47 (Supreme Court, 1893)
Griggs v. Guinn
29 Abb. N. Cas. 144 (New York Supreme Court, 1892)
Brown v. Gill & Fisher, Ltd.
50 F. 939 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1892)
Hirshfield v. Fort Worth National Bank.
15 L.R.A. 639 (Texas Supreme Court, 1892)
Porter v. . Pierce
24 N.E. 281 (New York Court of Appeals, 1890)
Bacon v. State
22 Fla. 46 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1886)
English v. Williamson
34 Kan. 212 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1885)
Boehm v. Rich
13 Daly 62 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1885)
New York Iron Mine v. Citizens' Bank
6 N.W. 823 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1880)
West v. Lee
50 How. Pr. 313 (New York Supreme Court, 1875)
Keating v. Serrell
5 Daly 278 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1874)
Champion v. Gordon
70 Pa. 474 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1872)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 Wend. 205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salter-v-burt-nysupct-1838.