Opinion

Irwin v. Brown

  • 2 D.C. 314
Court
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia
Filed
May 15, 1822
Status
Published
On the bench
Thruston
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

The Court

(Thruston, J., absent,)

said that this was a new question, but it appeared to them that the bill was substantially set forth in the declaration, and that it might be given in evidence, and that the words “ witness my hand and seal,” and the scrawl, made in the place of a seal, might be considered as surplusage.

Mr. Hewitt then objected that the demand on the 16th of December, was too soon, and the notice to the defendant on the 18th, by mail, was too late.'

The bill fell due on Sunday, the 17th, which was the last day of grace. The demand, upon the acceptor, who resided in Alexandria, was made on Saturday, the 16th, and notice was given by mail of the 18th to the defendant, Brown, who resided in Washington.

The Court (Thruston, J., absent,) said that the demand was not too soon, nor the notice too late.

Verdict.for the plaintiff,

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.