Supreme Court of the United States

“ The Legiflature, likewife, when regulating the affignment of bonds and notes, though they did not exprefsly put them on the fame footing with bills of exchange, muft, from the terms of the act, have taken it for granted, that an action might be brought upon a promiffory note, confidered as an inftrument. ‘Till, therefore, a contrary decifion is pronounced, we muft proceed as in the cafe of a bill of exchange, under the ftatute of Anne; and there it appears, that a very trifling negligence, on the part of the holder, will operate as a difcharge of the indorfor. ”

“ Brown, where it is faid, that when a note is difcharged by the drawer, the holder muft give reafonable notice to the indorfor; that this means fomething more than making it known ; for it is enough that he fays the drawer has not paid, but he muft declare that he does not mean to give credit ; and, therefore, when the circumftances are afcertained, what is reafonable notice is a queftion of law and not of fact. As to the giving time, the holder does it at his peril, for it has never been determined that the indorfor is liable, where the holder has given credit to the drawer ”

“ There is no Proof of sixty Years Possession, the Witnesses for the Plaintiff speaking only to 44 Years back.–3d. The Act of 32 H. 8. does not operate unless sixty Years elapsed since Right of Entry accrued, and here Tucker’s Wife had no Right of Entry till the Death of her Husband, which was in 1708 and not sixty Years ago. There was another point made for the Defendant, that in one of the mesne Conveyances, about sixteen Years ago, the Wives of the Grantors had not joined in the Deed, and were now living, and consequently might be limited to Dower. ”