This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1823 Excerpt: ...this note, it was alleged, and there that the defendant, eight days after the date, pro-note payable mised to pay to the plaintiff the sum of 100/.; eular place, and that he then and there made the said promis-amountto sory note payable at 32, Castle-street, Holbom. ofdtnlotL/ The second note was made payable at Guild-A promissory ford. The plaintiff proved that when the first note pT/abie..". prei at a banker's at G., the maker being absent from G. when the note became doe, il of a presentment to the maker at G. as alleged iu the declaration. became due, he presented it for payment at 32, Castle-street, Holborn, and that the answer was " no effects," and that he also presented the former note on the day when it became due, at two banking houses at Guildford, the defendant then living at London. E. Lawes for the defendant, contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover in respect of either note. The first he contended, had been mis described in the declaration, which had improperly stated it to be payable at a particular place. And in support of this position he relied on the case of Exon v. Russell.(a) With respect to the latter note, which was payable at Guildford, he contended that the plaintiff had not proved the allegation in his declaration, viz. " that he shewed and presented the said last mentioned note to the said defendant at Guildford," there was no evidence of any presentment to the defendant at Guildford, or to connect the presentment at the bankers with the defendant. Scarlett for the plaintiff contended, that as to the first objection there were two sufficient answers, 1st, the note at the bottom of the promissory note making it payable at 32, Castle-street, Holborn; and 2(11 y, that the case differed from t...