Bank of Alexandria v. Deneale
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia
At law. Assumpsit [by the Bank of Alexandria] against the executrix of the indorser of a promissory note for $4,000, made by one .Tames Deneale by his attorney in fact, the defendant’s testator, George Deneale, payable to the said George Deneale and by him indorsed to the plaintiffs, by whom it was discounted, and the proceeds placed to the credit of the maker, James Deneale. [Verdict and judgment for defendant] It was dated at Alexandria, on the 16th of June, 1818. and…
Read the full summary
At law. Assumpsit [by the Bank of Alexandria] against the executrix of the indorser of a promissory note for $4,000, made by one .Tames Deneale by his attorney in fact, the defendant’s testator, George Deneale, payable to the said George Deneale and by him indorsed to the plaintiffs, by whom it was discounted, and the proceeds placed to the credit of the maker, James Deneale. [Verdict and judgment for defendant] It was dated at Alexandria, on the 16th of June, 1818. and payable sixty days after date. No place of payment was stated in the note. James Deneale, the maker of the note, resided at…
1Opinion of the CourtCranch, Chief Judge
Circuit Judge, absent.) The court refuses to *602give the instruction prayed by the plaintiff's counsel.
1st. Because the evidence does not.support the hypothesis upon which the instruction is prayed; and
2d. Because the hypothesis, if true, will nor justify the instruction.
1. The hypothesis requires a known and established usage of the banks in Alexandria, to make no demand of payment on non-resident drawers of notes discounted in those banks; and a like usage of the banks to call upon and give notice to the resident indorsers of such notes. The evidence is, that it had never been the usage of the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jones v. FalesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
- The President, Directors, & Co. v. HammattMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1812