Beeding v. Pic
3 F. Cas. 63, 2 D.C. 152, 2 Cranch 152
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia·Decided June 15, 1818·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
(nem. con.) said the payment should have been demanded of Bayley on the third day of grace, and the protest and notice to the indorsers should be on the day after, and referred to the case of Lindenberger v. Beale, at December term, 1813, of this Court. S. C. 6 Wheat. 104.
A juror was withdrawn by consent, and the cause continued. See Renner v. Bank of Columbia, 9 Wheat. 582, and Mills v. Bank of United States, 11 Wheat, 431, 436, as to the usage of banks in making demand of payment on the 4th day.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Beeding v. Pic, 3 F. Cas. 63, 2 D.C. 152, 2 Cranch 152 (circtddc 1818).
3 F. Cas. 63 (Beeding v. Pic) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Garey's v. Union Bank of Georgetown
10 F. Cas. 1 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia, 1827)