Court Opinion

ID: 9298884
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-12-02 17:05:28.949652+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:13:36.226167
License: Public Domain

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice,
informed the jury, that as to the note, it was clearly a loan to Hopkins, and he was bound to use reasonable diligence to receive the money. If the amount of the note had been lost, by his failing to use such diligence, he was liable to the plaintiff. The jury were to weigh the evidence, as to the solvency of the drawer and endorser, when the note became due, and before it was offered to Higbie. When Higbie received information from the bank, •that Joseph Watson had withdrawn the note, it does not appear that any application was then made for it. An offer to return it was made in a month after, and refused. As to the value of the negro, the allegation in the bill,-that he was sold by Higbie to Hopkins, is denied. The answer, then, must be considered as true, unless contradicted by one witness, and circumstances to give it a preponderance.
Verdict for plaintiff.