Supreme Court of the United States, 1821

Bussard v. Levering

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided February 18, 1821

19 U.S. 102; 5 L. Ed. 215; 6 Wheat. 102; 1821 U.S. LEXIS 343 (United States Reports)

Counsel

This cause was argued by Mr. Jones for the plain-tiffin error, and by Mr. Key for the defendant.

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

Ariix, LLC v. Nutrisearch Corporation (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 2022)
Shed v. Brett (Mass. 1823)
Lee v. City of San Jose (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2023)
Didlake v. State (Wash. Ct. App. 2015)
Carl M. Loeb, Rhoades & Co. v. Hilton Hotels Corp. (Del. 1966)
Baltimore & O. Ry. Co. v. Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio 1893)
Globe Printing Co. v. Stahl (Mo. Ct. App. 1886)
Riggs v. Hatch (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York 1883)
National Bank v. Bryant (Ky. Ct. App. 1876)
Todd v. Neal's Administrator (Ala. 1873)
McFarland v. Pico (Cal. 1857)
Manchester Bank v. Fellows (Superior Court of New Hampshire 1854)
Staples v. President, Directors, of Franklin Bank (Mass. 1840)
Dennie v. Walker (Superior Court of New Hampshire 1834)
Piatt v. Eads (Ind. 1820)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

This Court were unanimously of opinion that, by the general law merchant, notice of non-payment given to the drawer oh the last day of grace, after a demand upon thé acceptor on the same day, (and Saturday, in this, case, was the. last day of grace, the next day .being Sunday) was sufficient to charge the drawer; and that the notice in this case given to the 'drawer* by putting the same into the post-office, was . good.

Judgment ¿ffirtned.

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