Summary

Portrait of Roger B. Taney Roger B. Taney Lamert v. Ghiselin — Opinion of the Court

As regards the first question, the court is of opinion that due diligence was used before the notice was sent to Nottingham. The case shows that there was very little, if any, trade between Alexandria and Nottingham at the time of this transaction, and but few persons, therefore, in Alexandria would be likely to know whether the defendant did or did not reside in Nottingham. The bill of exchange was not dated at any particular place, and the acceptors resided in Baltimore.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Roger B. Taney Roger B. Taney Lamert v. Ghiselin — Opinion of the Court

The law does not require actual notice. It requires reasonable diligence only, and reasonable efforts, made in good faith, to give it. And if sufficient inquiries have been made, and information received upon which the holder has a right to rely, a mistake as to the nearest post-office or usual post-office does not deprive him of his remedy.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Roger B. Taney Roger B. Taney Lamert v. Ghiselin — Opinion of the Court

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland, and on the point or question on which the judges of the said Circuit Court were opposed in opinion, and which was certified to this court for its opinion, agreeably to the act of Congress in such case made and provided, and was argued by counsel.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature