Connolly

Connolly v. Goodwin

Good Law
5 Cal. 220
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1855California503 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Heydenfeldt, J.

Murray, C. J., concurred.

There are two points made in this case which we will consider— First, that the protest of the Notary is not evidence of demand and *221 non-payment; and in favor of this position the appellant relies on the law merchant by which a promissory note is not made a protestable security. But this point must have been made for want of acquaintance with-the provisions of our' Act concerning Notaries Public. By the fifth section of that Act notes are made protestable, and by the tenth section, the protest of a Notary is expressly made evidence of demand, and nonpayment or non-acceptance of notes as well as bills.

The next point on appeal relies upon the fact That the seal of the Notary is made by an impression on the paper only, and not upon wax, as it is insisted it ought to be. This position it is urged must be right, because by all the old common law writers a seal is defined to be an impression made on wax, or wax with an impression, and some of the later authorities without regarding the reason of the rule have decided that it should be made in no other way. It is very obvious that at the origin of the doctrine in regard to seals, there existed no other…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.