Hibernia Bank & Trust Co. v. Smith
Hibernia Bank & Trust Co. v. Smith
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
When the holder of a note sues on it he need not prove the endorsement signature any more than the signature of the maker of it unless denied by plea under oath. Kendrick v. Kyle, 78 Miss., 279. The declaration is good enough. The “allegation of endorsement imports delivery.” 8 Cyc., 119 (9 and note). The plaintiff below, when he produced the paper endorsed, must be held properly in possession imtil the contrary is shown. Because the note was made payable at a particular bank did not necessitate a demand of payment there. Washington v. Planter's Bank, 1 How., 230; Cook v. Martin, 5 Smed. & M., 393; 4 Ency. Law, 393; 28 Am. Dec., 335. Undoubtedly, however, if pleaded that the money was there and remained there for payment, and so proved, it would be treated
Reversed and remanded.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Hibernia Bank and Trust Company v. Joshua L. Smith
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Promissory Notes. Indorsements. Effect. Actions on. Evidence. The signature of the endorser not being denied under oath, a plaintiff, being the holder of an endorsed promissory note, is entitled, without other evidence of his ownership, to offer it in evidence, and by so doing makes out prima facie his right to recover on the note. 2. Same. Pleading. Delivery. An averment in a declaration that a promissory note had been “by endorsement transferred and assigned to plaintiff” imports a delivery and is sufficient to show plaintiff’s ownership of the note. 3. Same. Demand at place of payment. It is not a defense to a suit upon a promissory note payable at a bank that the holder failed to demand payment there; but if the maker provided for its payment there at maturity and his money was there and remained there for payment, he should be relieved from interest after maturity and court costs.