United States v. Barker

25 U.S. 559, 6 L. Ed. 728, 12 Wheat. 559, 1827 U.S. LEXIS 410
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided February 23, 1827·Published·Cited by 34 cases

Opinion

Mr. Chief J ustice Marshal!,

delivered the opinion of the Court:

*561 Thai whatever doubts might be entertained as to the charge of the Court below relating to the transactions in England, (which it has not been thought necessary to state,) in respect to the protest and transmission of the bills, we think there is none as to what took place after their arrival at the treasury of the United States. The (piestiou was, whether notice of the dishonour of the bills was transmitted to the party within the time prescribed by the general law in resp'ect to bills of exchange. The Court were of opinion, that there was negligence either at Washington or New-York, as to giving such notice; and that the notice actually given was too late to fix him with the responsibility. The letter from the treasury department giving the notice; was .either not sent in due course of mail to New-York, or there was negligence at New-York in not giving notice there as early as it should have been given, after the letter arrived at that city. Whether, therefore, the Judge erred or not, as to the first part of his charge, in respect to the transmission of the bills from England in a reasonable time, there was no doubt that the U idled States had no right to recover on account of the neglect in giving due notice after the return of the bills.

Upon, this ground, the judgment of the Circuit Cauri; was affirmed.

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

United States v. Barker, 25 U.S. 559, 6 L. Ed. 728, 12 Wheat. 559, 1827 U.S. LEXIS 410 (1827).

25 U.S. 559 (United States v. Barker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rogers v. United States
71 So. 2d 214 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1954)
United States v. Summerlin
310 U.S. 414 (Supreme Court, 1940)
United States v. Summerlin
191 So. 842 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States
304 U.S. 126 (Supreme Court, 1938)
Ladd & Tilton Bank v. United States
30 F.2d 334 (Ninth Circuit, 1929)
United States v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co.
22 F.2d 113 (Fourth Circuit, 1927)
Williston v. Ludowese
208 N.W. 82 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1926)
State v. Horr
205 N.W. 444 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1925)
Maxwell v. United States
3 F.2d 906 (Fourth Circuit, 1925)
United States v. Dewart Milk Products Co.
300 F. 448 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1924)
England Nat. Bank v. United States
282 F. 121 (Eighth Circuit, 1922)
Ehrlich v. Jennings
58 S.E. 922 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1907)
Mountain Copper Co. v. United States
142 F. 625 (Ninth Circuit, 1906)
Walker v. United States
139 F. 409 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Middle Alabama, 1905)
Judson v. United States
120 F. 637 (Second Circuit, 1903)
Maine v. United States
36 Ct. Cl. 531 (Court of Claims, 1901)
Pond v. United States
111 F. 989 (Ninth Circuit, 1901)
United States v. Ingate
48 F. 251 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Alabama, 1891)