Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Warder et al. versus Carson's Executors, 1795 — 2 U.S. 233 · caselaw · US
Property · MBE-tested
Warder et al. versus Carson's Executors
2 U.S. 2332 Dall. 233·Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·1795·PA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Warder et al. versus Carson's Executors.
THIS was an action on a Foreign Bill of Exchange, brought by the indorsee against the executors of the indorsor, and a verdict was given for the plaintiff. A motion having been made and argued for a new trial, on the ground that there had been no proof of notice to the deceased indorsor, that the bill was protested, and of a demand for payment on the drawer, the Chief Justice delivered the opinion of the Court.
[MAJORITY — By the Court.]
By the Court.
The only point before us is, whether due notice was given to the testator of the demand and non-payment of the bill. From the peculiar situation of this country notice must be considered as a matter of fact; and, in that way, it was left to the Jury, in the present case, with this single remark, that the notice ought to be given as soon as it is practicable. No time, indeed, has been fixed even in the city; but we should be disposed to think, that fix or seven days would here be too great a delay.
The motion for a new trial rejected.