Case Name: McKINDER et al. v. DUNLAP
Court: United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1809-11
Citations: 16 F. Cas. 218
Docket Number: 
Parties: McKINDER et al. v. DUNLAP.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Cases
Volume: 16
Pages: 218–218

Head Matter:
Case No. 8,863.
McKINDER et al. v. DUNLAP.
[1 Cranch, C. C. 584.]
Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
Nov. Term, 1809.
Check — Demand of Patee — Insolvency of Drawer — Presumption.
If the drawer and payee of a check upon a bank reside in the town where the bank is, and the drawer be insolvent: the .iury cannot, in law. infer from those farts, that the plaintiffs had used due diligence in demanding payment, and giving notice to the defendant.
The plaintiffs [McKinder & Guilliat] offered in evidence a check drawn by the defendant [Samuel Dunlap] upon the bank at Norfolk.
Mr. Jones, for 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 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.

Opinion:
But
THE COURT
was of opinion and so instructed the jury that they could not, in law, make that inference.