« 이전계속 »
Parker v. Rule's lessee,
104 Perrott & Lee, Taber v.
243 Polk's lessee v. Wendell,
55 Pratt v. Law & Campbell, 456 Brig Struggle v.
71 -v. Bryan & Woodcock, 374 v. Giles et al.
v. Ship Fanny's cargo,
102 Randolph, v. Donaldson,
28 Richmond, The, v. U, S.
102 - Thirty hhds. sugar v. 191 Rule's lessee, Parker v
Van Riemsdyk, Clark's executor v. Sch. Adeline and cargo, 24.4
158 Ship Fanny's cargo, U.S. v. . 181 Hazard's cargo v. Campbell,
389 Walker et al M‘Iver's lesseę v. 173 - Richmond v. U.S.
102 Watkins, Otis v. Societè,
209 Wendell et al. Polk's lessee v. 87 St. Laurence v, U.S. 120 Williams et al. Finley v.
IN VOLUME IX.
· 450 Diana, Apollo, 257, 273 Dispatch,
394 Aquila, 273, 286 Dorothy Foster
275 Arlington, v. Merricke, 225 Dorrain, Craig v.
21 Ash, Hatter v.
108 Duke of Leeds, Pugh & wife v. 108 Atkinson, Liverpool waterworks v,
226 Atlantic, 399 Eenigheid,
132, 138 Attorney general v. Foley,
138 Elisabeth of Ostend
251, 401, 407, 439 Bacon v. Otis, 346, 347 Escott's case,
138 Baker v. Glasscock,
175 Expedite von Rotterdam, Barber, Pettibone v. 309 Eyston 'v. Studd,
282 Barker v. Parker,
226 Barwicke's case,
90 Bell, Potts v. 138 Farmor's case,
90 Bella Guidita, 138 Fisher v. Blight,
381 Bellasis v. Hester, 108 Fletcher v. Peck,
92 Benson v. Pullain,
33 Foley, Attorney General v. 333 Benton, commonwealth v. 226 Fortuna;
132, 158 Bernon, 227 Franklin,
273, 286 Blacklock, Commonwealth 228 Freckleton, Yates v.
226 Blantern, Collins v. 33 Freeden,
138 Blunt's lessee v. Masters, 175
G. Blight, Fisher v.
381 Glascock, Baker v. Bradford, Patterson v. 21 Gonaston, Markhain v.
33 Bradley v. Clark,
255 Greenup v. Kenton, Burden v. Kennedy,
480 Burges v. Wheat,
251 Calvin's case, 50 Harrison, Kelly v.
50 Carlotta, 273 Hatter v Ash,
108 Catharina Elizabeth, 450 Henry Pigot's case,
33 Clark, Bradley v. 255 Herbert v. Wise,
175 Collins v. Blantern, 33 Hester, Bellasis v.
108 Columbia, 394 Hoops
132, 133 Commonwealth v. Benton, 226 Hope,
273 - Blacklock, 228 Compte de Wohronzoff, 138 Indian Chief,
277 Craig v. Dorrain, ,21 Jackson v. Lunn,
50 Croudson v. Leonard, 142, 145 Jennings, Lord Proprietor v. 90 Crowell v. M‘Fadon, 344, 356 Jones v. Moxley,
Jonge Tobias, Dankebaar Africain, 251 Juffrow Catharina,
132, 191 Dannery, M'Donnough v. 249 --- Louisa Margaretta, 132, 138
Riddle v. Mossa
33 Kelly v. Harrison,
137 Kennedy, Burden v.
480 Kenton, Greenup v.
22 Kidder, Mead v. 316 Sampson,
273 Santa Cruz,
272, 405 Lade v. Stopherd,
331 Seaman, Talbot v. Lady June, 137 Shepherd, Lade v.
331 ol waterworks, V. Atkinson, Shepherdess,
394 226 Sheriff of London, Platt v. 282 La Virginie,
277 Ship Resolution, Miller v. 249, 276 Legate's case,
en Shirley v. Waits, Leonard, Croudson v. 142, 145 Smart v. Wolfe,
412 Lord Chando's case,
90 Somerville v. Somerville, 392 Lord Proprietor v. Jennings, 90 Soewart, Waters y.
484 Lunn, Jackson, v. 50 St. Lewis,
138 Stowell, Zouch v.
281 St. Philip,
131, 138 Madonna de Gracie,
137 Studd, Eyston v. Maria, 394, 401, 439, 441 Markham y. Gonaston,
23 Mary Ford, 249 Tailbois, Wimbish v.
255 Maryland Ins. Co. v. Woods, 91 Talbot v. Seamar
281 Masters, Blount's lessee v. 175 Thomas Gibbons,
134 M'Donough v. Dannery, 249 Thornton, Oneale v.
90 M.Fadon, Crowell v. 356 Thoroughgood's case,
33 Mead v. Kidder, 316 Tulep,
400 Mercurius, 394. Twen Venner Monk,
185 Meir.cke, Arlington v. 223 Two triends,
273 Miller v, ship Resolution, 249 Moss, Riddle v.
33 Muxley, Joues v.
312 U. S. v. Vowell & M'Clean, 111, 113, Muilet v. Park,
Vowell & M'Clean, U. S. v. 111, 113, Oneal v. Thornton, 90
120 Olis, Bacon v. 346, 347 Vrow Anne Catharina,
187 Vrow Margaretta,
251 P. Park, Mullet v. Parker, arker v. 226 Waters v. Stewart,
484 Patterson's del isees v. Bradford, 21 Watts, Shirley v.
48C Peck, Fletcher v. 92 Wheat, Burgess v.
314 Penson, Plu:ket v. 420 William,
132 Pettibone v. Barber, 309 Wimbish v. Tailbois,
255 Phoenix, 191 Wise, Herbert
115 Platt x sheriff of London, 282 Woiff, Smartp
412 Plunket v. Penson,
480 Woods, Maryland Ins. Co. v. 91 Poti v. Bell, .
138 Pugh and wife v. duke of Leeds, 108
Y. Pullain v. Benson,
33 Yates v. Freckleton,
SUPREME COURT U. STATES.
1815. Feb. Term. Feb. 8th.
THE UNION BANK OF GEORGETOWN.
Absent....LIVINŮSTON, J. TODD, J. and STORY, J.
ERRIR to the Circuit Court for the district of By, making a
of note ncgotia. Columbia, for the county of Alexandria, in an action of debt, by the Union Bank against Mandeville, upon his the maker aupromissory note to C. I. Nourse, indorsed to the bank. thorizes the
bank to ad
vance on his On the trial below a special verdict was found which credit to the
owner of the states the following facts :
note, the sum
expressed on On the 15th of January, 1811, Mandeville, then and its face; and it
would be a always an inhabitant of the town of Alexandia, (in the fraud upon the county of Alexandria) for a valuable consideration hank to set up
offsets against made his promissory note at the said town, payable to C. 1. Qiz Nourse (or order,) sixty days after date ; negotiable at consequence of the Union Bank of Georgetown; payable at the Bank of:
"; puyauce mno Daun Ustions between Potomac, in Alexandria, for 410 51.
The riote was delivered to C. 1. Nourse, and on the same day indorsed by hiin, and offered for discount at the Union Bank, where it was regularly discounted for his use.
. On the 30th of the same month, Mandeville being informed that his note had been discounted, made no ob. jection, and said that he had funds to meet it.
The note was not paid when it became due, and was protested for non-payment. VOL. IX.
MANDE. On the 16th of the same month (the day after the date VILL. of Mandevilles note) Charles I. Nourse, for a full and
V. valuable consideration, ex cuted and delivered to ManUNI'N deville, bis 'note of that date, payable in 60 days for BANK. $ 400, negotiable at the Bank of Alexandria ; payable
- at the Bank of Columbia, (in Georgetown.).
On the 30th of the same month, C. I. Nourse became further indebted to Mandeville by the acceptance of his order of that dat:, drawn at sight, and by acceptance made payable on the 16th of February following, in favor of C. Page for the use of Manileville, for 64 dollars neither of whicle has been paid. The Union Bank transacts its business in Georgetown, in the county of Washington.
On the 2d of February, 1811, Mandeville inserted an advertisement in the Alexandria Gazette, cautioning all persons against receiving assignments of any notes given by him to Nourse, as he had discounts against them.
Mandeville, in the Court below offered to sett-off the pote and acceptinci's of Mourse, against his own note upon which the suit was brought; bat upon the sprcial verdict, the Court below rendered judgment against him for its whole amount; and he brought his writ vf error.
By the laws of Virginia, in force in the county of Alexandria, the Defendant is allowed to sctt-off against the assignce of a promissory note any just claim which he had against the original payce before notice of the as. signment of the note.
But by the laws of Maryland, in force in the county of Washingon, a promissory note, payable to order, is subject to the same rules as in England under the statute of Anne.
On behalf of the Plaintiff in error, it was contended that the note, bring niade at Jlexandria and to be paid there, was to be governed by the laws of Virginia, and that as he held Nourse's note, before he had notice of