Case ID: f-cas_24/html/0528-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "THE COURT", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Case No. 14,340.
    UNDERWOOD v HUDDLESTONE.
    [2 Cranch, C. C. 93.] 
    
    Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
    Dec. Term, 1813.
    Notes — Action against Indorser — Notice or Non-Payment — Misnomer.
    Notice of the non-payment of a note signed by John, is not notice of the non-payment of a note signed by James, unless the party had good reason to believe that the .note of James was intended.
    [See Case No. 14.339.]
    Assumpsit, against the indorser of James B. Roddy’s note. The notice given to the defendant was of the non-payment of a note signed John B. Roddy, &c., describing the note correctly as to every circumstance, except the signature John, instead of James.
    THE COURT (THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, doubting,) said that if the jury should be of opinion, from the evidence, that the defendant had good reason to believe it to be the note in the declaration mentioned, the jury ought to presume that the defendant had reasonable notice, &c.
    Mr. Jones, for plaintiff.
    Mr. Law, for defendant.
   THE COURT

had before instructed the

jury, that notice of the non-payment óf a note signed by John B. Roddy, was not notiee of the non-payment of a note signed by James B. Roddy; but that opinion was founded upon the naked statement of the fact that the notice was of a note signed John B. Roddy. ■ -