LENOX ET AL.
v.
ROBERTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court held that while an assignee of promissory notes without endorsement cannot maintain an action at law, such an assignee may maintain a suit in equity to recover on the notes. The Court also established that proper notice of non-payment to endorsers requires a demand for payment on the last day of grace and notice of default sent by mail the next day.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the court.
The court will not give any opinion whether any action can be maintained at law upon any of the promissory notes in the record, by an assignee who does not claim the same by an endorsement upon the notes. For, in this case, there is no specific assignment of these notes; the only assignment is a general assignment, in trust, of all the property of the late bank of the United States, and, as the act of incorporation had expired, no action could be maintained at law by the bank itself. Under these circumstances, the court is clearly of opinion that a suit may be maintained in equity against the other, parties to the notes. Another question arises in the cause, whether the endorsers have had due notice of the non-payment by the makers. As there is some contrariety of evidence in the record, the court will only lay down the rule. And it is the opinion qf the court, that a demand of payment sjiould be made upon the last day of grace, and notice of the default of the maker be put into the post-office early enough to be sent by the mail of the succeeding day.
jOecree reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marion and Mary A. S. Sanderson v. Sanderson's Administrators, 20 Fla. 292 (Fla. 1883)
-
Indep. Wireless Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of Am., 269 U.S. 459 (U.S. 1926)…assignee’s claim, or .where for any technical reason the remedy through the-exercise of implied power of attorney [*473] was unavailable, equity intervened to lend its aid to the assignee and secure a recovery for his Lenefit. See Lenox v. Roberts, 2 Wheat. 373; Hammond v. Messenger, 9 Sim. 327; Roberts v. Lloyd, 1 DeG. & J. 208; Hodge v. Cole, 140 Mass. 116; Hughes v. Nelson, 29 N. J. Eq. 547; Hayes v. Hayes, 45 N. J. Eq. 461. The objection by the defendant that the name of the owner of the patent is u…
-
Curran v. The State of Ark., 15 How. 304 (U.S. 1853)…1; Wright v. Petrie, 1 S. &. M. Ch. R. 319; Nevitt v. The Bank of Port Gibson, 6 S. & M. 513; 1 Ed. Ch. R.; S. C. 9 Paige; Read v. Frankfort Bank, 23 Maine R. 318. And, in this point of view, the decision of this court, in Lennox et al. v. Roberts, (2 Wheat. 373,) is applicable. - It was a suit in equity,, brought by persons to whom, at the expiration of the charter of the Baiik of the United States, its effects were conveyed by deed, in trust for creditor's and stockholdersl Among these effects were -cert…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence