Morgan v. Reintzel
Supreme Court of the United States
. ERROR'to the Circuit Court for the district of Columbia sitting in Washington, In ah action of assumpsit brought by Reintzel against Morgan upon a promissory- note made by Morgan payable to Reintzel, or order. The declaration, contained three counts: 1st. Upon the promissory note in the usual form under the statute of Anne-; 2d. For money paid, laid out, and expended; and 3d.
Read the full summary
. ERROR'to the Circuit Court for the district of Columbia sitting in Washington, In ah action of assumpsit brought by Reintzel against Morgan upon a promissory- note made by Morgan payable to Reintzel, or order. The declaration, contained three counts: 1st. Upon the promissory note in the usual form under the statute of Anne-; 2d. For money paid, laid out, and expended; and 3d. The following special count, viz.: « And whereas also afterwards, to wit, on,” &c. «the said William Morgan, according to the custom and usage of merchants, made his certain note in writing, commonly called a…
1Opinion of the Court
Marshall, Ch. J.
after stating the case, observed that the Court could see no error in the judgment.
The payment of the money by the Plaintiff, under the circumstances stated in the count, was a sufficient consideration for the assumpsit.
The principal objection was that the count ought to have been founded upon the mote, so as to oblige the Plaintiff to produce it on the trial. But it states that the note was paid by the Plaintiff: and the Court5' thinks that the note must have been produced upon the trial.
Judgment affirmed,.
2Cited by6 opinions
- Roach v. HulingsSupreme Court of the United States · 1842
- Morse v. BellowsSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1835
- Shall v. NewberryDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 1916
- Joe Louis Grant v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1962
- Doughty v. HildtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Ohio · 1838
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.