CONTAINED IN THIS VOLUME,
to an action against the indorfer. Clark v. Young,
2. If a promiffory note of a third perfon be indorfed, by the pur- chafer of goods, to the vender, as a conditional payment for the goods, Quere, whether the vender is, in any cafe, obliged to fue the maker of the note before he can re- fort to the purchafer of the goods on the original contract of fale? Clark v. Young, 193 3. A fuit against the defendant as in- dorfer of the note, and a fuit against him for the goods fold, are upon dif. tinct and different causes of action; and the first can not be pleaded in bar of the fecond. Ib. 193 4. It is not neceffary for the plaintiff to offer to return the note, to enti- tle him to an action for the goods fold. ib. 194 5. In Virginia, an action will not lie by the holder against a remote indorfer of a promiffory note. Mandeville v. Riddle,
6. Quere, whether the holder of a promiffory note in Virginia, can not maintain an action for money had and received, against a remote in- dorfer? Dunlop v. Silver, 367 7. Can he, for whofe benefit a promife is made to a third perfon, main- tain an action against the promi- 429
2. To fupport a demand for falvage, the re-capture must be lawful, and a meritorious fervice must be ren- dered. Id. 3. Probable caufe is fufficient to ren- der the re-capture lawful. Id. 31 4. Where the amount of falvage is not regulated by pofitive law, it must be determined by principles of general law. Id. 5. Marine ordinances of foreign countries, promulgated by the executive by order of the legifla- ture of the United States, may be read in the courts of the United States without further authentica- tion or proof. Quere, whether they may not be read without fuch pro- mulgation? Id.
6. Municipal laws of foreign coun tries are generally to be proved as facts. Talbot v. Seeman, 7. To entitle to falvage, in cafes of re-capture, it is not neceffary that the means used should be with that fole view. Id. 36,41 8. The rule that falvage is not due for the re-capture of a neutral, is founded on the fact, that no be. nefit has been conferred. Id. 37 9. To entitle to falvage, it is not neceffary that the deftruction of the thing would have been inevi- table, but for the means used to fave it; but the danger muft be real and imminent. Id. 42, 43 10. Salvage does not imply a contraf. Id. 42, 43 11. France and the United States
2. If a promiffory note of a third perfon be indorfed by the pur- chafer of goods to the vender, as a conditional payment for the goods, Quere, whether the vend- er is, in any cafe, obliged to fue the maker of the note before he can refort to the purchaser of the goods on the original contract of fale. Ib. 181 A fuit against the defendant as in- dorfer of the note, and a fuit against the defendant for the goods fold, are upon diftinct and different causes of action; and the first can not be pleaded in bar of the fecond. ib. 4. It is not neceffary for the plaintiff
to offer to return the note, to en-
title him to bring fuit for the goods fold. ib.
5. A declaration in debt, upon a fo- reign protested bill of exchange, for the principal, intereft, damages and cifts of proteft, under the act of affembly of Virginia, muft aver the amount of those cofts of proteft. Willon v. Lenox. 195 6. Quere, whether the indorfer is dif charged. if, after due notice to fuch indorfer of non-payment by the drawee, the holder charge the bill in account current against the drawer, and upon the whole of that account the balance due is less than the amount of the bill? 7. Whether the indorfer, after due notice, is difcharged by the hold- er's receipt of part of the money from the drawer? 8. Whether it is neceffary to aver a protest for non-acceptance, in an ac- tion on proteft for non payment? ib.
9. Whether the drawer is a competent witness for the indifer, in an action against the latter.* ib. 10. Whether proteft for non-payment of a foreign bill of exchange muft be made on the last day of grace. Fenwick v. Sears, 11. Whether the reasonableness of no- tice be matter of fact, or matter of -lav. id. ib.
12. Whether, on the count for money bad and received, notice of non-ac- ceptance and of non payment, be neceffary to charge an indorfer who knew, at the time of indorf. ing, that the drawer had no right to draw. id. ib. 13. In Virginia, an indorfee of a pro- miffory note cannot maintain an action against a remote indorfer, for
See Herton. Atkinson, 7. T. R. 421, and Birt. Kershaw, 2 Eaft. 460.
« iepriekšējāTurpināt » |