McKinder v. Dunlap 16 F. Cas. 218, 1 Cranch, C. C. 584

Case No. 8,863.

McKINDER et al. v. DUNLAP.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 584.]1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1809.

Check — Demand of Patee — Insolvency of Drawer — Presumption.

If the drawer and payee of a check upon a bank reside in the town where the bank is, and the drawer be insolvent: the .iury cannot, in law. infer from those farts, that the plaintiffs had used due diligence in demanding payment, and giving notice to the defendant.

The plaintiffs [McKinder & Guilliat] offered in evidence a check drawn by the defendant [Samuel Dunlap] upon the bank at Norfolk.

Mr. Jones, for defendant,

contended that in order to charge the defendant, the plaintiffs must prove that they demanded payment from the bank; and gave notice to the defendant in reasonable time.

Mr. Taylor, for plaintiffs,

offered to prove that the plaintiffs and defendant lived in Norfolk; that the bank was in Norfolk and solvent; and that the defendant was insolvent; and contended that the jury might infer from these facts that the plaintiffs had used due diligence in demanding payment from the bank and giving notice to the defendant.