Case ID: h-j_1/html/0477-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Chase, Ch. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GENERAL COURT, (E. S.)
    APRIL TERM, 1804.
    Patton and Jones vs. Wilmot.
    “Whether or not due diligence ha* been used by (lie indorsee of a promissory note to recover the money from the drawer, is a question of law
    Where there has not been due ditt* gerice, a subsequent promise by the ' indorsor to pay the note will make him liable.
    Assumpsit by the indorsee against the indorsor of a promissory note.
    Hammond, for the plaintiff,
    cited 2 T. 11. 217. Esp. JY. P. 57.
    
    Bullitt, for the defendant,
    cited Esp. JV*. P. 54. l T. R. 67. Kyd. on Bills, 119.
   Chase, Ch. J.

There has not been due diligence used to recover the money from the drawer of the note, and it is the province of the court to determine whether or not dup diligence has been used. The jury therefore must find their verdict for the defendant, unless it appears to them that the defendant has subsequently promised to pay the amount of the note to the indorsee,

Yesdict eos the Defendant.