Brindley v. Barr

3 Del. 419
CourtSuperior Court of Delaware
DecidedJuly 5, 1842
StatusPublished

This text of 3 Del. 419 (Brindley v. Barr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brindley v. Barr, 3 Del. 419 (Del. Ct. App. 1842).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

As the parties in this case all resided in the same place, to wit: in the city of Wilmington, the indorser ought to have been personally noticed of the dishonor of the note, either verbally or in writing, or a written notice ought to have been left at his dwelling house or place of business. Either mode of notice is sufficient, but one or the other must be observed, unless it is prevented by the act of the party entitled to the- notice. In this case, the notice by a etter dropped in the post office at Wilmington, is not sufficient. The plaintiff, therefore, must be nonsuited. (2 Pet. Rep. 101, Williams vs. Bank U. States; 10 Johns. Rep. 490, Ireland vs. Kip, 11 Johns. Rep. 231.)

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

Related

Williams v. Bank of the United States
27 U.S. 96 (Supreme Court, 1829)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 Del. 419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brindley-v-barr-delsuperct-1842.