¶1It is difficult to perceive wherein the equity of this case consists. The suit is against a remote indorser, but the reason for not resorting to the intermediate indorsers is not stated. *123I do not perceive that it follows, that because a person has not relief at law, he must necessarily have a remedy in equity; yet that seems to be the only ground of equity relied upon in the bill. It does not appear, from the bill, that the defendant had notice of the non-payment of the note by Wilson or his administrator, so as to become liable at law; and if not liable at law, I see no ground to charge him in equity. But if he had notice, yet he was discharged in equity by the negligence of the complainant and those under whom he claims, in not proceeding to enforce payment from Wilson’s estate.
2 D.C. 121
Dean v. Marsteller
Decided November 15, 1816
Bill in equity. The complainant held a note made by James Wilson, payable to John Tucker, chairman of a marine insurance association, and indorsed by him, by William Yeaton, and by the defendant, Marsteller, for $610.72 given by Wilson to the association to sécure the repayment of that sum in case he should not, within a certain time, produce satisfactory proof of his loss on the ship Governor Strong, for which loss he claimed indemnity under a policy of insurance, and on…
Cited by 1 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1900
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1816-11-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →