Case Name: Patton and Jones vs. Wilmot
Court: General Court of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1804-04
Citations: 1 H. & J. 477
Docket Number: 
Parties: Patton and Jones vs. Wilmot.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the General Court and Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland, form 1800 ... [to 1826]
Volume: 1
Pages: 477–477

Head Matter:
GENERAL COURT, (E. S.)
APRIL TERM, 1804.
Patton and Jones vs. Wilmot.
“Whether or not due diligence ha* been used by (lie indorsee of a promissory note to recover the money from the drawer, is a question of law
Where there has not been due ditt* gerice, a subsequent promise by the ' indorsor to pay the note will make him liable.
Assumpsit by the indorsee against the indorsor of a promissory note.
Hammond, for the plaintiff,
cited 2 T. 11. 217. Esp. JY. P. 57.
Bullitt, for the defendant,
cited Esp. JV*. P. 54. l T. R. 67. Kyd. on Bills, 119.

Opinion:
Chase, Ch. J.
There has not been due diligence used to recover the money from the drawer of the note, and it is the province of the court to determine whether or not dup diligence has been used. The jury therefore must find their verdict for the defendant, unless it appears to them that the defendant has subsequently promised to pay the amount of the note to the indorsee,
Yesdict eos the Defendant.