How do we know? Taken from the published judgment; not rewritten by the platform.
This is a decision of Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, given 1 January 1790, from Caselaw Access Project. No later decision here cites it — that does not show it is still good law.
No later authority in this platform cites this decision. That means the platform holds no subsequent treatment — not that the decision is undisturbed.
Source
- Published by
- Harvard Law School Library Innovation Lab
- Source
- Caselaw Access Project
- Licence
- Open — US judicial opinions are not copyrightable (government edicts doctrine)
- Held here since
- 26 September 2026
Version
- Decided
- 1 January 1790
- Later treatment
- Not cited by any later authority here
- Jurisdiction
- Pennsylvania
Authority
- Court
- Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas
- Citation
- 2 U.S. 78
No later authority in this platform cites this decision. That means the platform holds no subsequent treatment — not that the decision is undisturbed.
The decision
- Court
- Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas
- Decided
- 1790-01-01
Headnote
The Bank of North America versus Vardon. THIS was an action against the indorsor of a promissory note; in which the only defence attempted on the trial, was the want of notice, that the note had not been paid by the drawer, when it became due. Lewis, for the plaintiffs, would not admit, that in Pennsylvania, the strict doctrine of notice applied to the case of promissory notes as in England; where notes, are put by statute upon the same footing with bills of exchange, and must, therefore, in that respect, as well as every other, be regulated by the same rules; nor that a protect on a promissory note was at all necessary here, except for the conveniency of ascertaining the demand and non-payment. He produced, however, the messenger of the Bank to the fact of notice being given to the indorsor, in the present case, in a short time and within the customary period, after the drawer had made default.
Judgment
Read from a scanOCR confidence 0.641 is below 0.7. This text was read from a scan and contains transcription errors. It may be relied on for what the case decided, but must not be presented as a verbatim quotation.
AI summary
Choose who the summary is for. Every statement links to the paragraph it comes from — the summary is never the only way to read this.
Ask LawTAG
Sign in to ask your team's LawTAGs about this page.
What it relied on
No outbound citations have been extracted for this decision.
In the news
News coverage of “Bank of North America v. Vardon” in the last three months, from GDELT.