Ireland v. Kip
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of assumpsit brought by the plaintiffs against the defendant as endorser of a promissory note made by Samuel Kip in favour of the defendant, and by him endorsed to the plaintiffs, and was tried in the city of New-York, on the first day of December, 1813. (See S. C. vol. 10. p. 490.) The plaintiffs offered to prove that on the day after the day on which the note became due, a notice in the ordinary form, of the non-payment of the note by the maker, was put…
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit brought by the plaintiffs against the defendant as endorser of a promissory note made by Samuel Kip in favour of the defendant, and by him endorsed to the plaintiffs, and was tried in the city of New-York, on the first day of December, 1813. (See S. C. vol. 10. p. 490.) The plaintiffs offered to prove that on the day after the day on which the note became due, a notice in the ordinary form, of the non-payment of the note by the maker, was put into the post-office in the city of New-York, directed to the defendant. That the defendant at that time resided at…
1Opinion of the CourtSpencer, J.
This case comes before the court under a new aspect. Admitting that a service of notice of the non-payment of the note by the maker, at the house in Frankfort-street, would have been good and equivalent to a service at the defendant’s dwelling or eomptinghouse, still we are of opinion that the delivery of such notice at the post-office, unaccompanied with proof that it was actually delivered at the house, is not notice.
In the case of Scott and others v. Lifford, (1 Camp. 249.) the court of king’s bench held that when the parties resided in London, or in the near neighbourhood of it, the party…
2Cited by18 opinions
- Williams v. Bank of the United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1829
- Seneca County Bank v. NeassNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- President of the Bank of the United States v. CorcoranSupreme Court of the United States · 1829
- Brenzer v. WightmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1844
- Sandford v. DillawayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.