Duncan v. M'Cullough
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In Error. IT appeared on the return of a writ of error to FrankUn county, that this suit was brought by Matthew Duncan, ^ plaintiff in error, against the defendant, as administrator of William, Findley, deceased, on a promissory note for 200 dollars drawn by Stirling Adams, payable to William Find- ^ or or¿er nine months after date, and indorsed by Findley.
Read the full summary
In Error. IT appeared on the return of a writ of error to FrankUn county, that this suit was brought by Matthew Duncan, ^ plaintiff in error, against the defendant, as administrator of William, Findley, deceased, on a promissory note for 200 dollars drawn by Stirling Adams, payable to William Find- ^ or or¿er nine months after date, and indorsed by Findley. It was dated at Baltimore, June 4th, 1814. It was not proved, at what place Adams drew the note, but some tjme ¡n t}ie sumtner of 1814, he boarded at Green Village, 7 07 in Franklin county, in this State, at the house of one James…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Tilghman C. J.
If the plaintiff had proved, that Adams had absconded, and was not to be found when the note fell due, a demand of payment would have been dispensed with, because it would have been impossible to make it. But no such thing was proved, and therefore, a demand was necessary. The notes being dated at Baltimore, would raise a presumption, that Baltimore was the drawer’s place of residence, as was decided by the Supreme Court of New Fork, 2 Caines’ Rep. 127. Baltimore then, was the place at which enquiry should have been made. The Court laid…
2Cited by13 opinions
- People v. RectorNew York Supreme Court · 1838
- Taylor v. SnyderNew York Supreme Court · 1846
- Toumey v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1872
- Foster v. . JulienNew York Court of Appeals · 1861
- Reid v. MorrisonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.