Brindley v. Barr
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.
Opinion
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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
3 Del. 419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brindley-v-barr-delsuperct-1842.