Warder v. Bell
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
A RUDE had been granted to shew cause why a new trial should not be granted in this suit. The action was tried in bank at the last September term, before Shippen and Smith Justices, and a verdict passed for the plaintiff. It was brought against the defendants on an indorsement of a foreign bill of exchange by their testator.
Read the full summary
A RUDE had been granted to shew cause why a new trial should not be granted in this suit. The action was tried in bank at the last September term, before Shippen and Smith Justices, and a verdict passed for the plaintiff. It was brought against the defendants on an indorsement of a foreign bill of exchange by their testator. The bill was dated ioth September 1788, and drawn by Hugh Moore on John Balfour in Londonderry, for 120I. sterling, payable to the order of Joseph Carson in London, in sixty days after sight, and by him indorsed to the plaintiffs. The bill was accepted on the 32d November…
1Opinion of the Court
The chief justice now delivered the opinion of the court. The ground on which a new trial is moved for, is, that notice was not proved to Carson the indorser in due time, of the bill being dishonoured; and that therefore he, and his executors *532after his death, are discharged from all responsibility on account of non-payment. The rule certainly is, that reasonable notice must be given in convenient time and at an early day. What is reasonable notice, has been lately settled in England to be a question of law, when the facts are established, and the time of giving notice extremely narrowed, (i…
2Cited by2 opinions
- ROBERTSON v. VogleSupreme Court of the United States · 1788
- Gurly v. Gettysburg BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1821