Morris v. Gardner

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

Morris v. Gardner

17 F. Cas. 817, 1 Cranch 213

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1804

StatusPublished

This text of 17 F. Cas. 817 (Morris v. Gardner) 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

Morris v. Gardner, 17 F. Cas. 817, 1 Cranch 213 (circtddc 1804).

Pincite

Opinion

Upon the first count, (which is on the note,)

THE COURT

gave the following instruction: That it is necessary for the plaintiffs to prove that a demand was made on Anderson, the maker, and notice of his refusal given to Gardner, the indorser, in due time, unless it should appear that Anderson was insolvent when the note was indorsed and delivered to the plaintiffs, and was known by Gardner to be so: That the defendant, Gardner, was discharged from his liability by .the want of such demand and notice, but that his assumption would make him again liable, if made under a knowledge of the facts and of the law as to his being discharged: And, further, that if the jury should be of opinion, from the evidence, that the defendant lived in the city of Washington, and the plaintiffs’ agent in Georgetown, the distance being about two miles, notice to the defendant, given nine days after the last day of grace, was not reasonable notice.

Verdict for plaintiffs.

Quaere. See De Berdt v. Atkinson, 2 H. Bl. 336, and Nicholson v. Gouthit, Id. 609, as to the necessity of notice in case of known insolvency.

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

Upon the first count, (which is on the note,)

THE COURT

gave the following instruction: That it is necessary for the plaintiffs to prove that a demand was made on Anderson, the maker, and notice of his refusal given to Gardner, the indorser, in due time, unless it should appear that Anderson was insolvent when the note was indorsed and delivered to the plaintiffs, and was known by Gardner to be so: That the defendant, Gardner, was discharged from his liability by .the want of such demand and notice, but that his assumption would make him again liable, if made under a knowledge of the facts and of the law as to his being discharged: And, further, that if the jury should be of opinion, from the evidence, that the defendant lived in the city of Washington, and the plaintiffs’ agent in Georgetown, the distance being about two miles, notice to the defendant, given nine days after the last day of grace, was not reasonable notice.

Verdict for plaintiffs.

Quaere. See De Berdt v. Atkinson, 2 H. Bl. 336, and Nicholson v. Gouthit, Id. 609, as to the necessity of notice in case of known insolvency.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 F. Cas. 817, 1 Cranch 213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-v-gardner-circtddc-1804.