M'Laughlin v. Duffield
Supreme Court of Virginia
Andrew Frame executed to David Given, a note dated the 5th of September 1839, and payable the 1st of February 1840, for 91 dollars 25 cents. Given assigned this note to Joseph Duffield ; and Duffield assigned it to H. O. Middleton, by the following endorsement on the note: “ 1 assign the within bond to H. O. Middleton, and agree not to take any legal advantage of said Middleton, in the indulgence he may give.
Read the full summary
Andrew Frame executed to David Given, a note dated the 5th of September 1839, and payable the 1st of February 1840, for 91 dollars 25 cents. Given assigned this note to Joseph Duffield ; and Duffield assigned it to H. O. Middleton, by the following endorsement on the note: “ 1 assign the within bond to H. O. Middleton, and agree not to take any legal advantage of said Middleton, in the indulgence he may give. June 5th, 1840.” On the 10th of the same month, Middleton assigned the note to Addison M’Laughlin. On , the 14th of June 1841, M’Laughlin instituted an action against Frame on the note,…
1Opinion of the Court
Cabell, P.
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The assignment of a promissory note, when made in the general or usual form, imposes on the assignee the obligation to use due diligence, in the effort to obtain payment from the maker of the note; and if, in such case, the assignee should fail to use such diligence, and the maker becomes insolvent, the assignee loses his right to resort to the assignor for payment of the note. But it is competent to the assignor, by the terms of his assignment, to exempt the assignee from the obligation to use due diligence; and when he does so, he will still be…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Thompson v. GovanSupreme Court of Virginia · 1853
- Ragsdale v. HagySupreme Court of Virginia · 1852
- Thompson v. GovanSupreme Court of Virginia · 1853
- Thompson v. GovanSupreme Court of Virginia · 1853
- Thompson v. GovanSupreme Court of Virginia · 1853