Henderson v. Reilly
This text of 8 D.C. 25 (Henderson v. Reilly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The Court, in substance, held:
That the authorities on brief of appellees sustain most fully the charge of the court to the jury in this case. When a guarantee is prospective, and looks only to future transactions, in order to invest it with the obligation of a contract, the party to whom it is addressed must give notice of his intention to act upon it. The guarantor has a right to know whether it is accepted, in order that he may make such arrangements as will secure himself for his responsibility.
Although insolvency may sometimes relieve a party from giving notice, this is not such a case; for notice here is essential to the completion of the contract.
It follows from these views that the judgment must be affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
8 D.C. 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henderson-v-reilly-dc-1873.