Legal Opinion

Colcord v. Wall

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County

Decided February 13, 1841PublishedCited by 1 opinion

THIS was an action brought by capias ad respondendum to December term, 1840, No. 35, in which Enoch L. Colcord was the plaintiff, and G. D. Wall was the defendant. Nov. 7, 1340, the plaintiff filed a copy of the note on which suit was brought, as follows, viz.: “ $1050 “ Washington, January 1, 1840. “ Four months after date I promise to pay to Gamaliel Gay or order one thousand and fifty dollars, without defalcation, for value received.

Read the full summary

THIS was an action brought by capias ad respondendum to December term, 1840, No. 35, in which Enoch L. Colcord was the plaintiff, and G. D. Wall was the defendant. Nov. 7, 1340, the plaintiff filed a copy of the note on which suit was brought, as follows, viz.: “ $1050 “ Washington, January 1, 1840. “ Four months after date I promise to pay to Gamaliel Gay or order one thousand and fifty dollars, without defalcation, for value received. (Signed) Garket D. Wall.” - December 7, 1840, the defendant presented his petition under the 12th section of the act of Congress of 1789, praying for a…

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Stroud, J.—

It appears by the petition of the defendant, that the cause of action is a promissory note, of which he was the maker, and a certain Gamaliel Gay the payee. The plaintiff therefore, if entitled to sue in his own name, as he has done, must be an endorsee, claiming through the endorsement of Gay. The petition avers that the plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Pennsylvania, and that the defendant is a citizen of the State of New Jersey. It makes no mention of the citizenship, or otherwise, of Gay. Now, the 11th section of the act of Congress…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Turner, Administrator of Stanley, in Error v. The President, Directors and Company of the Bank of North AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1799
  2. Hobbs v. MagruderU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · 1834

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Fisk v. Union Pacific RailroadDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1871

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API