Cowan v. Magauran
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania
This was an action on an inland bill of exchange, brought to April sessions, 17; S. The defendant pleaded, 1st Non assumpsit. 2nd. Payment. 3d. Non assumpsit infra sex annos. A verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court on the following case. The parties to the bill were, at the time of the transaction, resident in Ireland.
Read the full summary
This was an action on an inland bill of exchange, brought to April sessions, 17; S. The defendant pleaded, 1st Non assumpsit. 2nd. Payment. 3d. Non assumpsit infra sex annos. A verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court on the following case. The parties to the bill were, at the time of the transaction, resident in Ireland. On the 24th of July, 17SS, one William Gibson drew' the bill in question for £180 sterling, in fa-vour of Cowan, the plaintiff, on Magauran, the defendant, payable 31 days after sight. The bill was accepted by Magauran on the 31st July, and on…
1Opinion of the Court
GRIP PITH. Circuit Judge.
The point of that determination seems to be, the acknowledgment after the action brought. It did not turn on the question of bare acknowledgment; and as the facts are stated by Bul-ler. in his Nisi Prius (149), it appears the debt was on a note in which the defendant was surety, who, being applied to, said, “You know I had not any of the money myself, but am willing to pay half of it;” though Buller takes no notice of the promise being after the action. See Esp. N. P. 151, S. C. In Trueman v. Penton (anno 1777), Cowp. 548, it is laid down, that if a man devises his…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Ryan v. BindleySupreme Court of the United States · 1864