Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/239

 Serum: Covivr or Pmyjlwnia. 233 ‘ I revoke that judgment. The whole matter was before that Court, ljgfc [ and they determined the property to be Fairchild?. The plai¤= vw`} { tif in the attachment was wholly uncdrineéled with the prefent I plaintiffs, and cannot, upon any principle I know, be conlitlered as receiving the money to their ufe. The more obvious res * courfe for the plaintiff, is to Fairchild hixnfelf, or his ellate, if he has left any; if not, it is more agreeable to law and jullicei that the plaintitffhould fufer by the default or iailurc of his own agent, than that a llranger, recovering a fair dtbt in a're-· gular courfe of juilice, {hould refund the money to another lhanger, with whom he had no manner of conneélion. Ysarzs, jlg/lit-:. Whatever irregularity there may have been in rendering the foreign judgment, the judgment itfelf is conclu- _ live, as the decilion of a competent tribunal, upon a fubjc& in li• tigation. We can have no legitimate power to revife, or annul it. lf it were necefary to remark upon the merits of the original traufaflion, I fhould deem them, under all the circumltances, in favor of the defendant. The principles in Cmp. zoo. might be fairly applied to the cafe. Sstrrx-r, jryfzcc, concurred, and cited r.Ht BLR.•p. 131. . A new trial granted.? Wanna: ct sl. wrjur CARSOICS Exceutors. THE was an aetion on a Foreign Bill of Exchange, brought by the indorfee againlt the executors of the indorfor, and _ averdifk was given for the plaintiH‘Z A motion having been made and argued for a new trial, on the ground that there had been no proof of notice to the deoeafed indorfor, _that the bill was protelted, and of it demand tor payment on the drawer, the Crust ]¤s·r1cs delivered the opinion of the Court. Br rmt Comer. The only point before us is, whether due notice was given to the tefiator of the demand and non—payment of the bill. From the peculiar (ituation of this country notice mult be conlidered as a matter of fait; and, in that way, it was left to the jury, in thc prcfent cafe, with this lingle remark, _ that the notice ought to be given as foon as it is ptaélicable. No time, indeed, has been lixed even in the city; but we ihould be difpofed to thinlt, that fix or feven days would here be too great a delay. The motion for a new trial rejeélcd. Gg Carcusr " See the fame cafe, decided in the fame Way in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, aura p. Sr. judgment was afterwards renrlered for the defendant; an.! Smgnudrxpon at Wn: of Error in the High Cc::t of Errors and Aye Ptl Ea

�