Ish v. Mills

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

Ish v. Mills

13 F. Cas. 167, 1 Cranch 567

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

DecidedJuly 15, 1809

DocketCase No. 7,104

StatusPublished

This text of 13 F. Cas. 167 (Ish v. Mills) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ish v. Mills, 13 F. Cas. 167, 1 Cranch 567 (circtddc 1809).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT

was of opinion that notice to the indorser of a promissory note, not negotiable, is not necessary in Virginia. The obligation of the indorser of such a promissory note in Virginia is that if the holder cannot, by using due diligence, obtain payment from the maker, the indorser will pay at all events, whether he had notice or not, and that due diligence is a question for the jury.

The defendant took a bill of exceptions, but did not prosecute a writ of error.

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

THE COURT

was of opinion that notice to the indorser of a promissory note, not negotiable, is not necessary in Virginia. The obligation of the indorser of such a promissory note in Virginia is that if the holder cannot, by using due diligence, obtain payment from the maker, the indorser will pay at all events, whether he had notice or not, and that due diligence is a question for the jury.

The defendant took a bill of exceptions, but did not prosecute a writ of error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 F. Cas. 167, 1 Cranch 567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ish-v-mills-circtddc-1809.