Case ID: dc_3/html/0046-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Bank of the U. S. v. Thomas Corcoran.
    Notice left at the shop of the indorser’s son, is not sufficient to charge him; although the shop was in a room of the house in which the indorser resided; the entrance into the shop being separate from that into the dwelling-house; the indorser hav-f ing no concern in his son’s business, and, being postmaster, and having a separate office in which he transacted his public and private business, and the son having a separate dwelling-house.
    An agreement by the indorser not to take advantage of the statute of limitations, and to authorize an attorney to agree to docket a suit upon the note, is not evidence from which the jury can infer that the indorser received due notice.
    
      Assumpsit against the defendant as indorser of Daniel Reint-zel’s note, for $3,700.
    The notice for the defendant was left at the shop of the defendant’s son, kept in the dwelling-house of the defendant, but having a separate entrance, and unconnected with the part occupied by the defendant.
    The defendant had no concern with the shop, and the son had a separate dwelling-house. The defendant was postmaster, and kept an office in which he transacted his private business as well as his public. The notary had been in the habit of leaving notices for the defendant at the shop of the defendant’s son; but there was no evidence that the defendant had authorized, or acquiesced in, such notices so to be left.
    
      Mr. Key, for the plaintiff,
    then prayed the Court to instruct the jury in effect, that if they should be satisfied by the evidence that notice had been duly received by the defendant, although it was so left, the notice was sufficient; and that the two papers (hereafter mentioned), were evidence from which the jury might infer such notice. The papers were, first, an agreement not to take advantage of the statute of limitations ; and, second, a promise to authorize counsel to docket a suit upon the note.
   The Court (Thruston, J. contra,) instructed the jury that such notice, so left, was not sufficient to charge the defendant.

But the Court (Thruston, J. contra,) refused to give the instruction, because they thought the papers did not warrant such an inference.

Bills of exception were taken, and upon the- writ of error, the judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States upon both points. 2 Peters, 121.