Witherell v. Ela

Decided June 15, 1861

Supreme Court of New Hampshire · decided 1861-06-15

Assumpsit on a note, dated March 13, 1860, signed by J. K. & S. Merrill, payable to the order of the defendant, George W. Ela, for $319.75, in two months, at either bank in Boston, and indorsed in… Held: because the note was mutilated by the erasure of the plaintiff’s name.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1897

1 state decisions

Relies on Pitcher v. Livingston · Olivera v. The Union Insurance Company · Bank of Utica v. Smith

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1861-06-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

By the Court.

¶1The indorser of a note, when it is returned to bim, after protest, may strike out bis own indorsement, although .it is in full, and maintain an action on it in bis own name. Dugan v. U. S., 3 Wheat. 183; Piquet v. Curtis, 1 Sum. 480; Thompson v. Robinson, 4 Johns. 21; Emerson v. Cutts, 12 Mass. 78; Nevins v. De Grand, 15 Mass. 438; Bank of Utica v. Smith, 18 Johns. 230; Norris v. Badger, 6 Cow. 455; Chat. Co. Bank v. Davis, 21 Wend. 584; Chit, on Bills, 230, n. a; Edw. on Bills, 271.

¶2Judgment for the plaintiff.