Summary

Portrait of John Marshall John Marshall Edmondston v. Drake and Mitchel…

In the view which the court takes of the case, it is unnecessary to decide on the first instruction given by the circuit court. If the letter of the 16th of April 1825 was limited to Castillo and Black, that of the 25th of May, unquestionably sanctioned the advances made by Drake and Mitchel on its authority; and made Edmondston responsible for Robson's contract with them. It is on his part a collateral undertaking, which binds him as surety for the Robsons, that they will comply with their contract. No doubt exists respecting his original liability.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of John Marshall John Marshall Edmondston v. Drake and Mitchel…

It is immaterial whether it was made for the benefit of the Robsons, or of Drake and Mitchel, or of both. They had no right to vary a contract for their own benefit at the hazard of Mr Edmondston.
It has been urged that the risk of remittances to New York was as great as the risk of bills on England. Were this true, it could not affect the case. Mr Edmondston had a right to exercise his own judgment on the risk; and the persons who varied this contract had no right to judge for him.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of John Marshall John Marshall Edmondston v. Drake and Mitchel…

Thomas Robson, Esq., Charleston.-Please pay Charles Edmondston, Esq., or order, the sum of twenty-six dollars, for balance of your account with, dear sir, your obedient servants, Drake and Mitchel.
The bill on Crowder, Clough and Co. having been returned under dishonour, Drake and Mitchel, in a letter of the 15th of October, employed Mr Edmondston as their agent, to obtain its amount from the Robsons, or from Boyce and Henry. In a letter of the 5th of November, Mr Edmondston informed Drake and Mitchel of the ill success of his endeavours to procure payment.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature