Woodbury v. Crum

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Ohio

Woodbury v. Crum

30 F. Cas. 487, 1 Biss. 284

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Ohio

DecidedMay 15, 1859

StatusPublished

This text of 30 F. Cas. 487 (Woodbury v. Crum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Woodbury v. Crum, 30 F. Cas. 487, 1 Biss. 284 (circtndoh 1859).

Pincite

Opinion

McLEAN, Circuit Justice,

charged the jury, that in case the maker of a note transferred property to the indorser for the express purpose of paying the debt, then subsequent notice of non-payment by the maker would be dispensed with, if the amount of property thus assigned was sufficient to satisfy the liability; not otherwise, although all the property of the maker may have been thus assigned.

The learned justice admitted the strength of the authorities referred to by plaintiffs, but said he was inclined, for the present, to rule that the assignment by Coonrod to Crum, being in trust for general creditors, and being sufficient in amount for the payment of no more than fifteen cents on the dollar of the debts, although it included all his property, was not sufficient in the law to excuse the want of notice to the indorser, or to show due diligence in the holder.

The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.

[Motion for a new tidal was immediately filed by plaintiffs, and continued by the court, under advisement.] ³

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

McLEAN, Circuit Justice,

charged the jury, that in case the maker of a note transferred property to the indorser for the express purpose of paying the debt, then subsequent notice of non-payment by the maker would be dispensed with, if the amount of property thus assigned was sufficient to satisfy the liability; not otherwise, although all the property of the maker may have been thus assigned.

The learned justice admitted the strength of the authorities referred to by plaintiffs, but said he was inclined, for the present, to rule that the assignment by Coonrod to Crum, being in trust for general creditors, and being sufficient in amount for the payment of no more than fifteen cents on the dollar of the debts, although it included all his property, was not sufficient in the law to excuse the want of notice to the indorser, or to show due diligence in the holder.

The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.

[Motion for a new tidal was immediately filed by plaintiffs, and continued by the court, under advisement.] ³

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 F. Cas. 487, 1 Biss. 284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodbury-v-crum-circtndoh-1859.