Hopkirk v. Bell
Supreme Court of the United States
This case was again certified from the Circuit Court for the district of Virginia. It appeared upon the trial, in addition to the facts stated in the former report of the case, (a) that Andrew Johnston, one of the partners of the house, trading under the firm of Alexander Spiers, John Bowman & Co., of whom the plaintiff was the surviving partner, came to this country, after the treaty of peace in 1783, viz., in the spring of 1784, and died here in 1785, but that no other…
Read the full summary
This case was again certified from the Circuit Court for the district of Virginia. It appeared upon the trial, in addition to the facts stated in the former report of the case, (a) that Andrew Johnston, one of the partners of the house, trading under the firm of Alexander Spiers, John Bowman & Co., of whom the plaintiff was the surviving partner, came to this country, after the treaty of peace in 1783, viz., in the spring of 1784, and died here in 1785, but that no other partner of the firm has been in this country, at any time since the treaty of peace.
1Opinion of the Court
The Court
ordered it to be certified as r*16g their opinion, that, under the all circumstances stated, the act of *- limitations of Virginia was not a bar to the plaintiff’s demand on the note of 21st August 1772.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Hopkirk v. BellSupreme Court of the United States · 1807