Dwight v. Wing

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Michigan

Dwight v. Wing

8 F. Cas. 190, 2 McLean 580

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Michigan

DecidedOctober 15, 1841

DocketCase No. 4,219

StatusPublished

This text of 8 F. Cas. 190 (Dwight v. Wing) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dwight v. Wing, 8 F. Cas. 190, 2 McLean 580 (circtdmi 1841).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT. This action is brought against the defendants, as in-dorsers of a promissory note, payable at the Bank of Michigan. To the declaration there is a demurrer, for the following reasons: First: There is no venue set forth in the margin of the declaration; Second: The averment of notice, of nonpayment, is not laid with certainty, as to time or place. There Is no formal venue laid in the margin of the declaration; but there is a venue in the body of it, and that is sufficient. By the rule adopted in England, Hilary Term, 4 Wm. IV.. the venue, in the body of the declaration, is to be omitted, and it is laid in the margin only. Under this rule, the venue, not being laid in the margin, is ground of demurrer. There is an averment of demand, of the drawer of the note, when it became due, and that due notice of nonpayment was given to the defendants. This is all the law requires. Under the averment of due notice, all the facts, in proof of that allegation, may be given in evidence. Firth v. Thrush, 8 Barn. & C. 387; 2 Man. & R. 359. Demurrer overruled, and judgment.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT. This action is brought against the defendants, as in-dorsers of a promissory note, payable at the Bank of Michigan. To the declaration there is a demurrer, for the following reasons: First: There is no venue set forth in the margin of the declaration; Second: The averment of notice, of nonpayment, is not laid with certainty, as to time or place. There Is no formal venue laid in the margin of the declaration; but there is a venue in the body of it, and that is sufficient. By the rule adopted in England, Hilary Term, 4 Wm. IV.. the venue, in the body of the declaration, is to be omitted, and it is laid in the margin only. Under this rule, the venue, not being laid in the margin, is ground of demurrer. There is an averment of demand, of the drawer of the note, when it became due, and that due notice of nonpayment was given to the defendants. This is all the law requires. Under the averment of due notice, all the facts, in proof of that allegation, may be given in evidence. Firth v. Thrush, 8 Barn. & C. 387; 2 Man. & R. 359. Demurrer overruled, and judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 F. Cas. 190, 2 McLean 580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dwight-v-wing-circtdmi-1841.