Mandeville v. Mackenzie
District Court, District of Columbia
Assumpsit by the indorsee against the indorser of a promissory note made by John Mclver, payable to the defendant, and by him indorsed to the plaintiff. The note was payable on the 19th of February, 1797, and protested for non-payment on the 20th. The jury found a special verdict in these words, namely: “We find the note in the declaration mentioned in these words, namely: We find the indorsement, &e.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit by the indorsee against the indorser of a promissory note made by John Mclver, payable to the defendant, and by him indorsed to the plaintiff. The note was payable on the 19th of February, 1797, and protested for non-payment on the 20th. The jury found a special verdict in these words, namely: “We find the note in the declaration mentioned in these words, namely: We find the indorsement, &e. We find that the plaintiffs instituted a suit in the Court of Hustings in the town of Alexandria, against the said John Mclver, and obtained a judgment thereon against him. We find that the said…
1Opinion of the CourtCeanch, J.
The contract of the assignor is to this effect, that he will repay the money to the assignee if the assignee cannot obtain the money from the promissor, having used due diligence therefor. The plaintiff, to entitle himself to recover, must make out his case; that is, he must show that he has not obtained the money from the maker of the note, and that he has used due diligence. It is admitted that a suit, prosecuted to judgment and execution, is, in Virginia, a necessary part of that diligence, (unless, perhaps, it can be shown that the maker was insolvent, or had run away,) but it is not the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Pacific Cable Construction Co. v. McNattWashington Supreme Court · 1891
- Lee v. Love & Co.Court of Appeals of Virginia · 1799
- Woodburn Sarven Wheel Co. v. McKernanIndiana Superior Court · 1871