Drane v. Scholfield
Supreme Court of Virginia
Assumpsit, by M. Scholfield, tbe assignee, against Washington Drane, a remote assignor, of a promissory note, in tbe county court of Fairfax. Tbe declaration contained one special and three general counts.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, by M. Scholfield, tbe assignee, against Washington Drane, a remote assignor, of a promissory note, in tbe county court of Fairfax. Tbe declaration contained one special and three general counts. The special count alleged, that Thomas Drane, on the 10th June 1818, made a promissory note to W. Jones, for 200 dollars, payable sixty days after date, for value received, that Jones assigned the note to Washington Drane, the defendant, who assigned it to J. Spear, who assigned it to Scholfield, the plaintiff (without alleging that any of these assignments were made for value received);…
1Opinion of the CourtBrockenbrough, J.
The only question which I deem it necessary to consider in this case, is, whether the plaintiff used due diligence in suing the maker of the note, before he brought his suit against the defendant ? or rather, whether he was excused from suing the maker by his removal to Maryland, under the circumstances set forth in the demurrer to evidence ?
The general rule is, that the assignee of a bond or promissory note must use due diligence to recover the amount of it from the obligor or maker, before he can resort to the assignor. A suit is in general necessary, but there are circumstances which will…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Riddle & Co. v. Mandeville & JamessonSupreme Court of the United States · 1809
- Pacific Cable Construction Co. v. McNattWashington Supreme Court · 1891
- Scott v. Detroit Young Men's Society's LesseeMichigan Supreme Court · 1843
- Mandeville v. Joseph Riddle & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1803
- Dick v. LairdU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · 1837
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.