January v. Duncan

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Illinois

January v. Duncan

13 F. Cas. 362, 3 McLean 19

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Illinois

DecidedJune 15, 1842

DocketCase No. 7,217

StatusPublished

This text of 13 F. Cas. 362 (January v. Duncan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

January v. Duncan, 13 F. Cas. 362, 3 McLean 19 (circtdil 1842).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT. This action is brought upon a note given by W. B. Archer to Joseph Duncan, for four thousand dollars, payable five years from the 5th of January, 1837. This note the defendant assigned to the plaintiff, the 12th of July, 1839, and guarantied the payment thereof. The declaration alleged no demand on the drawer at the maturity' of the note, and on this ground the defendant’s counsel demurred. There is nothing in the guaranty of this assignment which excuses a demand on the drawer of the note when due. The undertaking of Duncan was collateral, to pay the money when due, if Archer, the drawer of the note, should fail to pay it; and in all such cases a demand and notice are essential to the maintenance of the action against the assignor or guarantor. Where there is a special guaranty in the note, it is a special contract between the guarantor and guarantee, and it does not pass to the assignee of the note; in such case, the action must be brought between the parties to the guaranty. The demurrer is sustained; but leave is given to amend the declaration.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT. This action is brought upon a note given by W. B. Archer to Joseph Duncan, for four thousand dollars, payable five years from the 5th of January, 1837. This note the defendant assigned to the plaintiff, the 12th of July, 1839, and guarantied the payment thereof. The declaration alleged no demand on the drawer at the maturity' of the note, and on this ground the defendant’s counsel demurred. There is nothing in the guaranty of this assignment which excuses a demand on the drawer of the note when due. The undertaking of Duncan was collateral, to pay the money when due, if Archer, the drawer of the note, should fail to pay it; and in all such cases a demand and notice are essential to the maintenance of the action against the assignor or guarantor. Where there is a special guaranty in the note, it is a special contract between the guarantor and guarantee, and it does not pass to the assignee of the note; in such case, the action must be brought between the parties to the guaranty. The demurrer is sustained; but leave is given to amend the declaration.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 F. Cas. 362, 3 McLean 19, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/january-v-duncan-circtdil-1842.