Case Name: Ish v. Mills
Court: United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1809-07
Citations: 1 Cranch 567
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ish v. Mills.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (District of Columbia - reported by Mackey)
Volume: 1
Pages: 567–567

Head Matter:
Ish v. Mills.
Notice to the indorser, of non-payment of a promissory note, not payable to order, is not necessary in Virginia.
Due diligence is a question for the jury.
Assumpsit against the indorser of Barnes & Holly’s promissory note, not payable to order. The note became payable on the 21st of February, 1806. The plaintiff brought his suit against Barnes & Holly, on the 17th of May, 1806. Execution was issued in August, 1807. Barnes took the oath of an insolvent debtor in July, 1806, and Kelly in December, 1807. This action was brought against Mills on the 2d of July, 1808.
Mr. E. J. Lee, for the defendant,
relied on the want of diligence in not giving notice to the defendant of the non-payment by Barnes & Holly.

Opinion:
The Court
was of opinion that notice to the indorser of a promissory note, not negotiable, is not necessary in Virginia. The obligation of the indorser of such a promissory note in Virginia is that if the holder cannot, by using due diligence, obtain payment from the maker, the indorser will pay at all events, whether he had notice or not, and that due diligence is a question for the j^y.
The defendant took a bill of exceptions, but did not prosecute a writ of error.