Philips v. M'Curdy
1 H. & J. 187
Opinion
The Court are of opinion, and so direct the jury, that the defendant is not responsible to the plaintiffs, owing to their laches in not giving him reasonable notice of the bill of exchange-being protested for nonacceptance, and in not having presented the said bill for payment, and protested it for nonpayment at the time required by law; and because Caspar Voght, the drawee, being the holder of the bill, could not legally protest the same. The plaintiffs excepted, and suffered a nonsuit.
Duvall and Done, J. concurring.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Philips v. M'Curdy, 1 H. & J. 187 (Va. Super. Ct. 1801).
1 H. & J. 187 (Philips v. M'Curdy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Keil v. West
21 Fla. 508 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1885)
Bell v. Hagerstown Bank
7 Gill 216 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1848)
Whiteford v. Burckmyer
1 Gill 127 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1843)