title:
David Wilkie Appellant vs A Chandon Appellee, Brief of Appellant
title:
81
creator:
David Wilkie
contributor:
Bignold
contributor:
Stinson
date:
1890
publisher:
Washington State Supreme Court
type:
Civil
subject:
Contracts
language:
eng
format:
application/pdf
description:
Prior History: Appeal from Superior Court, Chehalis County.Action commenced in the district court for Chehalis county, Washington Territory, December 24, 1888, by the appellee, A. Chandon, against David Wilkie, the appellant, upon a promissory note made by one John Wilkie to David Wilkie and by David Wilkie indorsed, with protest waived, and delivered to appellee. The note was made at Marysville, California, on February 1, 1884, and was payable one year after date at the banking house of Decker & Jewett, of that place, for the principal sum of $ 1,100, being a pre-existing debt due the appellee from John Wilkie, the maker of the note. The action was commenced against the appellant as indorser of the note. The action was tried before a jury, who returned a verdict in favor of the appellee, upon which judgment was rendered against appellant, from which he appeals.Promissory Note – Indorsement – Consideration – Demand – Waiver – Where one becomes a party to a note as an indorser thereof before delivery, he identifies himself with the maker; and the settlement of a pre-existing debt, owing from the maker to the indorsee, is sufficient consideration to uphold the contract of indorsement.A waive of protest on a promissory note executed and indorsed in California waives presentment and notice, under the laws of that state, and in a suit thereon in this state it is unnecessary to prove a demand.Where no demand is necessary to bind the indorser, it is not error for the court to exclude an interrogatory to the jury as to whether plaintiff demanded payment of the maker of a promissory note before the commencement of suit.An interrogatory to the jury asking whether defendant “signed the note as maker, surety or indorser” was properly refused, where the undisputed proof showed that he signed the same as indorser; and also for the reason that the jury might answer in which of said capacities he signed, or might answer “yes” or “no” as to the entire question.
relation:
Wilkie v. Chandon, 1 Wash. 355 (1890)
relation:
25 P. 464
rights:
These materials are public records. Please see Washington State Court Rules: General Rules 31 for details https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/GR/GA_GR_31_00_00.pdf
