Raymond v. Baar

13 Serg. & Rawle 318, 1825 Pa. LEXIS 130
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedOctober 27, 1825
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 13 Serg. & Rawle 318 (Raymond v. Baar) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Raymond v. Baar, 13 Serg. & Rawle 318, 1825 Pa. LEXIS 130 (Pa. 1825).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a very plain case. The plaintiff was guilty of most unreasonable negligence. He kept the note six months, after he knew it to be counterfeit, without giving notice to the defendant. It was his duty to return it to the defendant, as soon as he discovered it to be counterfeit. There was no suggestion of fraud in the defendant, in passing the note to the plaintiff. He supposed it to be genuine. If it had been returned to him in any reasonable time, he might have had recourse to the person from whom he recived it. But in consequence of the plaintiff retaining it so long, he has lost all chance of redress; because, it would be extremely difficult, after the lapse of six months, to identify the note, or prove from whom it was received. No plausible reason has been, or can be given, in justification of the plaintiff’s conduct. It was what is termed in law, crassa negligenta, gross negligence, and he ought to suffer for it. The charge of the Court of Common Pleas was perfectly correct, and the judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Curcier v. Pennock
14 Serg. & Rawle 51 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1826)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 Serg. & Rawle 318, 1825 Pa. LEXIS 130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raymond-v-baar-pa-1825.