Murray v. Ormes

Decided July 1, 1881

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · decided 1881-07-01

The defendant Ager was sued as endorser on two promissory notes dated April 11, 1872, each for the sum of $1,082.33, payable at the Freedman’s Savings and Trust Company. On the trial of the action it was stipulated by counsel that the only defense made by the said Ager is that there was not due notice of protest of the promissory notes in suit.

Decided 1881-07-01

Mr. Justice Olin

¶1delivered the opinion of the court:

¶2An action was brought upon two promissory notes against Ager as endorser. The defense interposed was that he had not received notice of protest. The notice of protest was left at the residence of the defendant in this city, where the defendant Ager had rented a house, and which, at the time of the maturity of the note, was occupied by his daughter and servant, and which he made his home when in Washington on business. On looking through the bills of exception in this case, we think it quite apparent that notice of protest was duly served, and the judgment of the court below must be affirmed.