Thompson v. Williams

Citations

• 14 Cal. 160

Syllabus

<p>A notice to the indorser of a note of non-payment by the maker is sufficient, if it appear that the indorser, at the time of receiving the notice, knew what particular piece of paper was referred to, and could not have been prejudiced by the failure to describe it. And this, though the notice was verbal, and the note neither produced, nor described.</p> <p>Where a note, due January, 1857, was indorsed by the payee to the present holder, November 26th, 1858, and he, November 20th, 1858, demanded payment of the maker, and verbally notified the indorser of such demand, and that he would be held on his indorsement, it is no objection to the notice that it did not state the time of demand. The demand was good, if made within a reasonable time, and before the notice; otherwise, as to notes indorsed before maturity. In such-cases the notice must state the time of demand.</p> <p>If much time intervenes between demand and notice, in transfers after maturity, the question may arise whether the delay has not released the indorser.</p> <p>A notice by the holder that he “ had demanded payment of that note,” implies that payment was demanded of the person liable to pay, to wit: the maker. And the declaration that he intended to look for payment to defendant, the indorser, implies the fact of nonpajunent.</p>