Boehme v. Carr

Mason, J., delivered the opinion of this court. The note which forms the basis of the present action is' in these words, viz: “Sixty days after date I promise to pay D. S. Carr, or order, three hundred dollars for value received. /" 1. S' Jno. Spear Smith.” This noté' was endorsed by Mr. Carr, the appellee in the present suit, for the accommodation of the drawer, who passed it over to the appellant.

Upon maturity it was protested for non-payment. The protest, after stating demand, refusal to pay, &c., adds, “on the same day I addressed a written notice to the endorser of the said promissory note, informing him it had not been paid by the maker thereof, and that he ²¹⁰ woidd be held responsible for its payment, and left it with his agent, John C. Van Wyck, Esq.” The court below rejected a number of prayers which were offered in the progress of the trial, but finally gave the jury the following instruction: “ That there is no sufficient evidence in the case to establish such notice to the defendant of the dishonor of the note sued for in this case to enable the plaintiff to recover in this action.” From this instruction the present appeal was taken. The sufficiency of the notice of protest is the point, therefore, which is directly presented by the decision of the court below. We regard this question as settled by the cases of Sangston vs. Graham, 1 Md. Rep., 59 , and Hunter vs. Van Bomhorst & Co., ibid., 504, and as they are conclusive of the present case, we must affirm the judgment.

In both those