Keiser v. Butte Creek Consolidated Dredging Co.

JAMES, J.

Separate appeals were taken in the two actions the titles of which appear first above. As precisely the same questions of law are involved, the parties stipulated to present both cases upon one record and one set of briefs. The appeals were taken by the plaintiff from a

[39]

judgment entered in favor of respondents, the latter being indorsers upon two promissory notes executed by the defendant corporation in favor of the plaintiff. All of the respondents except Ira D. McCoy, .as well as the plaintiff, were at the times the two promissory notes were executed, directors of defendant corporation. McCoy was secretary of the same corporation. All of the respondents were at all times familiar with the transactions having to do with the execution of the two notes and had actual knowledge of the fact that the notes were not paid at maturity. It is admitted that no formal presentment and demand for payment of the obligations was made upon the makers of the notes, and no notice given to the indorsers of dishonor thereof.

[1]

The first point made on behalf of appellant is that the fact that the directors and McCoy the secretary (the indorsers) at all times had full knowledge of the fact that the corporation had not satisfied its obligations to the plaintiff, relieved him of the duty of making demand upon the payor and giving notice of dishonor to the indorsers. Appellant cites to this point a decision from another state which supports that view, the case being

Hull

v.

Myers,

90 Ga. 674, [16 S. E. 653], Respondents make question with the soundness of that decision, claiming that its reasoning is illogical, and refer to the case of

Hudson Furniture Co.

v.

Harding,

70 Fed. 468, [30 L. R. A. 513, 17 C. C. A. 203], In the latter decision the federal court distinctly decides the question the other way and refers pointedly to