Bowie & Kurtz v. Blacklock

3 F. Cas. 1069, 2 D.C. 265, 2 Cranch 265
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia
DecidedNovember 15, 1821
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 3 F. Cas. 1069 (Bowie & Kurtz v. Blacklock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bowie & Kurtz v. Blacklock, 3 F. Cas. 1069, 2 D.C. 265, 2 Cranch 265 (circtddc 1821).

Opinion

The Court

(Thruston, J., absent,)

overruled the opinion before given, and instructed the jury that the holder of the note was only bound to call at the usual place of business of the defendant, in business hours; and if it be shut, and no person there to receive notice, the holder is excused for not giving notice.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Morgan
99 F. 570 (Fourth Circuit, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 F. Cas. 1069, 2 D.C. 265, 2 Cranch 265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowie-kurtz-v-blacklock-circtddc-1821.