Bank of the United States v. Norwood
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maryland
Assumpsit on a promissory note drawn by Stone, Vaughan, & Co. in favour of the defendant, and by him endorsed to the plaintiffs. This note was what is called an accommodation note, and the defendant endorsed merely to enable the drawers to obtain money on it from the bank, and the defendant knew that the drawers meant to obtain the money from the plaintiffs. The following facts appeared in evidence.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on a promissory note drawn by Stone, Vaughan, & Co. in favour of the defendant, and by him endorsed to the plaintiffs. This note was what is called an accommodation note, and the defendant endorsed merely to enable the drawers to obtain money on it from the bank, and the defendant knew that the drawers meant to obtain the money from the plaintiffs. The following facts appeared in evidence. The note was presented for payment to the drawers, who refused to pay it, and it was on the same day protested by Samuel Sterett, a notary public, and a letter to the defendant informing him that…
1Opinion of the Court
Tira Couiir took until the next day to consider the objections, when the opinion was delivered by
Citase, J.(a) From indisposition I have not been able to give this case so ful! a consideration as I wished. We have, however, considered it so far as to have formed a decided opinion.
It has been object d that the plaintiffs, being a corporate body, cannot act by agent without authority by deed. This objection has no force. The bank may act as a natural person.
As to the manner of giving notice, it might ho questionable whether the simply putting the letter in the post office would be sufficient if…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Bank of the United States v. SmithU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · 1822
- Bank of Columbia v. LawrenceU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · 1824
- McKim v. OdomHigh Court of Chancery of Maryland · 1828