Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 D.C. 645

Walter v. Johnson

Decided April 15, 1826

<p>In an action against the maker of a promissory note, payable at a particular bank, it is not necessary to aver or prove a demand of payment at that bank.</p> <p>A promissory note, given as collateral or counter security for a note borrowed, is not discharged or vacated by the borrower’s discharging or taking up the borrowed note with funds furnished by the lender.</p>

Decided 1826-04-15

The Court

¶1(nem. con.) refused to give the instruction; considering the averment in the declaration as immaterial in an action against the maker.

¶2The counsel for the defendant, prayed the Court, in substance, to instruct the jury, that if the defendant, or Mr. Hoffman, his partner, tjad paid and taken up the lent note, the plaintiffs could not recover upon the guaranty note. And the plaintiffs prayed the Court,' in substance, to instruct the jury that, if the lent note was taken up, in whole, or in part, with funds furnished by the lenders, the plaintiffs are entitled to recover upon the guaranty note, to the extent of the funds thus furnished by them. Both of which instructions the Court in effect gave.

¶3Verdict for the plaintiffs, $2,135.68 and interest from the 31st of May, 1825.

¶4Five bills of exceptions were taken; but no writ of error was issued.

/2/dc/645 · .json · Public domain