Superior Court of Delaware, 1842

Brindley v. Barr

Brindley v. Barr
Superior Court of Delaware · Decided July 5, 1842 · <italic>Per Curiam.</italic> &#8212;
3 Del. 419

Counsel

Chandler, for plaintiff. J. A. Bayard, for defendant.

Brindley v. Barr

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

As the parties in this case all resided in the same place, to wit: in the city of Wilmington, the indorser ought to have been personally noticed of the dishonor of the note, either verbally or in writing, or a written notice ought to have been left at his dwelling house or place of business. Either mode of notice is sufficient, but one or the other must be observed, unless it is prevented by the act of the party entitled to the- notice. In this case, the notice by a etter dropped in the post office at Wilmington, is not sufficient. The plaintiff, therefore, must be nonsuited. (2 Pet. Rep. 101, Williams vs. Bank U. States; 10 Johns. Rep. 490, Ireland vs. Kip, 11 Johns. Rep. 231.)

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.