Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

5 Cal. 393

Tevis v. Wood

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1855

California Supreme Court · decided 1855-07-01

The defendants were sued as indorsers of a promissory note. The case was tried by the Court, who found that the note upon which this action was brought, was presented to the makers, and payment demanded, on the 13th day of December, 1854, the day upon which it fell due: that payment was refused: and that the note was duly protested, and notice of the protest was given to the indorsers, Wood and Lathrop, in due time, but that such notice stated that the note was presented on…

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently July 1907

1 federal appellate ·

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1855-07-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶1Bryan, J., concurred.

¶2This suit was against the defendants as indorsers of a promissory note.

¶3From the facts it appears that demand upon the makers was made at the right time, but the notice to the defendants stated the demand to have been made on a different day,—that is to say, on a day too late to bind the indorsers.

¶4The object of notice to the indorser of a note or bill, is to advise him of his liability, so that he may take the earliest steps for his own security. Indorsers are a favored class of litigants, and the Courts have always maintained their rights witl! great strictness. If, therefore, the very language of the notice conveys to the indorser, not the advice of his liability being fixed, but positive information which assures him necessarily of his release from liability, the object of notice would be defeated, if it was insisted that he was still liable. The notice in such case, instead of arousing him to immediate effort for his security, lulls him into false security. Instead of being the protection which *395the law intended it to be, it would be a snare to entrap the unwary, and such a doctrine would soon lead to its total disuse.

¶5The notice in this case was insufficient, and the defendants are therefore discharged.

¶6Judgment affirmed.

/5/cal/393 · .json · Public domain