Smith v. Stinson

3 S.C.L. 1
United States District Court·Decided July 1, 1793·Published

Opinion

Per cur ¿

Geimke, J.

The tender has been sufficiently proved, as the plaintiff did-not object to the want oí sufficient notice, but said he had passed away, the bond. The demand can carry no interest from the time of the tendon It has been contended that the verdict ought to be for the defendants, because no demand, since the tender, has been proved ;-but I-think the service of process in this action, must be considered as a demand. 8ed quaere de hoc.[3] Verdict for the plaintiff, (payable in corn.

Footnotes

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

Smith v. Stinson, 3 S.C.L. 1 (usdistct 1793).

3 S.C.L. 1 (Smith v. Stinson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.