Lenox v. Roberts

Supreme Court

Lenox v. Roberts

15 U.S. 373, 4 L. Ed. 264, 2 Wheat. 373, 1817 U.S. LEXIS 414

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMarch 15, 1817

StatusPublished

Cited by28 cases

This text of 15 U.S. 373 (Lenox v. Roberts) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lenox v. Roberts, 15 U.S. 373, 4 L. Ed. 264, 2 Wheat. 373, 1817 U.S. LEXIS 414 (1817).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Marshall

delivered the opinion of the court.

The court will not give any opinion whether any action can be maintained at law upon any of the promissory notes in the record, by an assignee who does not claim the same by an endorsement upon the notes. For, in this case, there is no specific assignment of these notes; the only assignment is a general assignment, in trust, of all the property of the late bank of the United States, and, as the act of incorporation had expired, no action could be maintained at law by the bank itself. Under these circumstances, the court is clearly of opinion that a suit may be maintained in equity against the other, parties to the notes. Another question arises in the cause, whether the endorsers have had due notice of the non-payment by the makers. As there is some *377 contrariety of evidence in the record, the court will only lay down the rule. And it is the opinion qf the court, that a demand of payment sjiould be made upon the last day of grace, and notice of the default of the maker be put into the post-office early enough to be sent by the mail of the succeeding day.

jOecree reversed.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Marshall

delivered the opinion of the court.

The court will not give any opinion whether any action can be maintained at law upon any of the promissory notes in the record, by an assignee who does not claim the same by an endorsement upon the notes. For, in this case, there is no specific assignment of these notes; the only assignment is a general assignment, in trust, of all the property of the late bank of the United States, and, as the act of incorporation had expired, no action could be maintained at law by the bank itself. Under these circumstances, the court is clearly of opinion that a suit may be maintained in equity against the other, parties to the notes. Another question arises in the cause, whether the endorsers have had due notice of the non-payment by the makers. As there is some *377 contrariety of evidence in the record, the court will only lay down the rule. And it is the opinion qf the court, that a demand of payment sjiould be made upon the last day of grace, and notice of the default of the maker be put into the post-office early enough to be sent by the mail of the succeeding day.

jOecree reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 U.S. 373, 4 L. Ed. 264, 2 Wheat. 373, 1817 U.S. LEXIS 414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lenox-v-roberts-scotus-1817.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack