Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

20 F. Cas. 787

Riggs v. St. Clair

U.S. District Court

Decided December 15, 1809

U.S. District Court · decided 1809-12-15

Assumpsit upon F. L. Hamilton’s note indorsed by the defendant, 28th of May, 1808, at sixty days; protested 2d of August. The demand ought to have been on the 30th or 31st of July. in which the defendant requested the plaintiff to pursue Hamilton and expressed uneasiness, is evidence of a due remand and notice, or of waiver of notice. Mr. Caldwell. If the .conversation was under ignorance of the fact that due notice was not given, it is immaterial.

Decided 1809-12-15

THE COURT

¶1was of opinion that the alteration was immaterial,. and did not avoid the note unless it was made with the privity of the plaintiff.

¶2Mr. Caldwell then prayed the court to instruct the jury that if they should be satisfied by the evidence that the note was indorsed by the defendant to give a credit to the note and to be discounted at the bank; that it was not discounted, but passed away by Hamilton to Riggs, who took it in lieu of another smaller note of Hamilton’s and paid the difference in cash, the plaintiff cannot recover against the defendant more than the amount of the money so paid.

¶3But THE COURT refused, upon the principle of negotiability of the note. The plaintiff is only bound to show that he came fairly by it, as in the case of a note payable to bearer, and lost or stolen, &e.

/20/fcas/787 · .json · Public domain