Thornton v. Stoddert

District of Columbia

Thornton v. Stoddert

1 D.C. 534

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedJune 15, 1809

StatusPublished

This text of 1 D.C. 534 (Thornton v. Stoddert) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thornton v. Stoddert, 1 D.C. 534 (D.D.C. 1809).

Pincite

Opinion

The CouRT,

(Monday, June 12th, Duckett, J., absent,)

was of opinion, that if the defendant indorsed the note as surety for Forrest, as to any part of the amount of the note, he was entitled to strict notice as indorser, although he was interested separately in. part of the note, and that the plaintiff could not recover unless he proved a demand on U. Forrest before the 9th of February.

But if the defendant was jointly interested with Forrest, in the property, to relieve'which from forfeiture the note was given, then the defendant was not entitled to notice, being as much the principal debtor as U. Forrest.

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

The CouRT,

(Monday, June 12th, Duckett, J., absent,)

was of opinion, that if the defendant indorsed the note as surety for Forrest, as to any part of the amount of the note, he was entitled to strict notice as indorser, although he was interested separately in. part of the note, and that the plaintiff could not recover unless he proved a demand on U. Forrest before the 9th of February.

But if the defendant was jointly interested with Forrest, in the property, to relieve'which from forfeiture the note was given, then the defendant was not entitled to notice, being as much the principal debtor as U. Forrest.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 D.C. 534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thornton-v-stoddert-dcd-1809.