General
Bank of United States v. Daniel Bussard
3 D.C. 1733 Cranch 173·United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia·1827
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
Bank of United States v. Daniel Bussard.
In an action against the maker of a promissory note, it is not necessary to show a demand of payment at the bank in which it is made payable.
Assumpsit against the maker of a promissory note, to the order of William King, for $10,255, for value received, “ negotiable and payable at the Bank of Columbia.”
Judgment was confessed, subject to the opinion of the Court, whether the plaintiffs could maintain the action without averring and proving demand of payment at the Bank of Columbia.
Mr. Lear, for the plaintiffs,
cited The Bank of the United States v. Smith, 11 Wheat. 171.
Mr. G. C Lee, for the defendant,
cited Beverley v. Beverley, in this Court, at Alexandria, (2 Cranch, C. C. 470,) not then decided; and jRowe v. Young, 2 Brod. & Bing. 165; S. C. in Error, 2 Bligh, 391.
[MAJORITY]
The Court (Cranch, C. J., doubting,) decided that it was not necessary for the plaintiffs to aver or prove a demand of payment at the Bank of Columbia, in this action against the maker.