McCready v. Cann

5 Del. 175
Superior Court of Delaware·Decided July 5, 1849·Published

Opinion

By the Court:—

This note is an agreement by the drawer to pay it, at all events to the payee, or to any one to whom he endorses it. As between the original parties, the drawer and payee, want or failure of consideration, or any like equities, may be set up. But not so as against an indorsee. In his case, it must be shown that he had notice of the infirmities of the note, or that he took the indorsement out of the usual course of business. This'must be proved by the party objecting to the note. The indorsement must be taken to have been in the usual course of business, before maturity, unless it is otherwise proved; nor can any inference of irregularity arise from the omission to present the note; or to protest it. That was not necessary, to charge the drawer. (3 Harr. Rep. 388, Bush vs. Peckard.)

Verdict for plaintiff.

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

McCready v. Cann, 5 Del. 175 (Del. Ct. App. 1849).

5 Del. 175 (McCready v. Cann) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Higgins
138 A. 597 (Delaware Court of Oyer and Terminer, 1926)