James v. Badger

New York Supreme Court

James v. Badger

1 Johns. Cas. 131

New York Supreme Court·Decided July 15, 1799·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

An acceptance of a part from the maker, does not discharge the endorser, provided the holder gives notice in time, that he looks to him for the residue. Here notice was given, but it was general, and in the usual form, without specifying that any part had been paid. Although this was not strictly correct, according to the fact, yet we think it was sufficient for every beneficial purpose of notice to the endorsers.

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

Per Curiam.

An acceptance of a part from the maker, does not discharge the endorser, provided the holder gives notice in time, that he looks to him for the residue. Here notice was given, but it was general, and in the usual form, without specifying that any part had been paid. Although this was not strictly correct, according to the fact, yet we think it was sufficient for every beneficial purpose of notice to the endorsers.

James v. Badger, 1 Johns. Cas. 131 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1799).

Pincite

1 Johns. Cas. 131 (James v. Badger) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related