Chapman v. Lipscombe & Powel

1 Johns. 294
New York Supreme Court·Decided May 15, 1806·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Without discussing or deciding on the point, whether the subsequent promise of Lipscombe to Whitlock, was a waiver of notice, we are of opinion, that due notice of the dishonour of the bill was given. The bill was drawn .and dated at New-Tork, and there is no evidence, that the plaintiff knew that the defendants resided at Petersburgh ; he inquired at the banks, and elsewhere, and being informed that the drawers resided at Norfolk, he sent a notice by post to them, and another addressed to them at New-Tork; this is sufficient, and all that ought to be required of him. He has used due diligence. Being of that opinion, it is unnecessary to examine the other points, or whether the charge of the judge was correct or not.

Rule refused.

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

Chapman v. Lipscombe & Powel, 1 Johns. 294 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1806).

1 Johns. 294 (Chapman v. Lipscombe & Powel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

University Press, John Wilson & Son, Inc. v. Williams
48 A.D. 188 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1900)
Central National Bank v. Adams
11 S.C. 452 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1879)
Burk v. Shreve
39 N.J.L. 214 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1877)
Pierce v. Struthers
27 Pa. 249 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1856)
Hunt v. Nugent
18 Miss. 541 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1848)
Hill v. Varrell
3 Me. 233 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1825)
Ferris v. Saxton
4 N.J.L. 1 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1818)
Fisher v. Evans
5 Binn. 541 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1813)