Case Name: STEWART v. FRENCH
Court: United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1822-04
Citations: 23 F. Cas. 57
Docket Number: 
Parties: STEWART v. FRENCH.
Judges: (THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent)
Reporter: Federal Cases
Volume: 23
Pages: 57–57

Head Matter:
Case No. 13,427.
STEWART v. FRENCH.
[2 Cranch, C. C. 300.]
Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
April Term, 1822.
Notes — Ixdoksemext after Date of Payment— Indorsee — Demand and Notice — Insolvency of Maker.
If a promissory note, payable at a certain day, be indorsed and passed away after its day of payment, it is then a note payable on demand, and demand and notice are necessary to charge the indorser, although he knew the maker to be insolvent at the time he indorsed it.
Assumpsit [by David Stewart] against [Robert French] the indorser óf W. A. R.’s note for 8150. at sixty days, dated July 16, 1810, indorsed by the defendant, to the plaintiff, on the 10th of October, 1819, in part payment for a gig valued at $300.
Upon the trial of this cause at the last term (Cranch. C. J., absent) the court instructed the jury: “That if the note was passed to the plaintiff, after the sanie was at maturity, for a full and valuable consideration. the bolder was bound to make demand of payment of the same, of the drawer, in a reasonable time after the same was so passed, and to give notice of nonpayment to the defendant, the indorser, unless the jury should believe, from the evidence, that the said defendant practised a deception on the plaintiff in so passing the said note, after it was at maturity, or, that it was known to the defendant that the said W. A. R., the drawer, was insolvent.” The verdict being for the plainVff,
Mr. Dunlop, for defendant,
moved for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection of the jury by the court, and cited Farnum v. Fowle, 12 Mass. 89; Sanford v. Dillaway, 10 Mass. 52-54; Berry v. Robinson, 9 Johns. 121; and Chil. Bills (New Ed.) 274, in a note.
Mr. Ashton, for plaintiff,
contended that the plaintiff had a right to recover for the balance of the purchase money covered by the note, which was of no value, upon the count for goods sold and delivered.

Opinion:
THE COURT
(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent)
granted a new trial.