Case ID: dc_1/html/0584-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "But the Court", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

McKinder & Guilliat v. Samuel Dunlap.
    If the drawer and payee of a cheek upon a hank reside in the town where the hank is, and the drawer he insolvent; the jury cannot, in law, infer from those facts, that the plaintiffs had used due diligence in demanding payment, and giving notice to the defendant.
    The plaintiffs offered in evidence a check drawn by the defendant upon the bank at Norfolk.
    
      Mr. Jones, for the defendant,
    contended that in order to charge the defendant, the plaintiffs must prove that they demanded payment from the bank; and gave notice to the defendant in reasonable time.
    
      Mr. Taylor, for the plaintiffs,
    offered to prove that the plaintiffs and defendant lived in Norfolk; that the bank was in Norfolk and solvent; and that the defendant was insolvent; and contended that the jury might infer from these facts that the plaintiffs had used due diligence in demanding payment from the bank and giving notice to the defendant.
   But the Court

was of opinion and so instructed the jury that they could not, in law, make that inference.