General
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company v. W. A. Bradley and William Thomas Carroll
4 D.C. 1934 Cranch 193·United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia·1831
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
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company v. W. A. Bradley and William Thomas Carroll.
A notice cannot lawfully be served on Sunday.
Mr. Wallach and Mr. Jones, for plaintiffs.
Mr. Tabbs and Mr. Coxe, for defendants.
[MAJORITY]
This was a motion for judgment for an instalment on a joint subscription by the defendants, in the handwriting of Mr. Bradley, for one hundred shares. The ten days’ notice, required by the fifth section of the charter, was served on Mr. Carroll on Sunday. Upon that ground the motion was overruled by the Court, although the parties had appeared according to the notice. Monkhouse v. Roberts, 8 East, 547; Rex v. Croke, Cowp. 26.