Brown v. Duncanson
General Court of Virginia
Assumpsit upon an accepted inland hill of exchange, drawn by William Mayne Duncanson, on the defendants, in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff at the trial, offered in evidence to the jury, that on the 9th of February X 797, and for some months before and after, the defendants were joint merchants and copartners in trade, under the name and firm of Duncanson <§• Bay.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit upon an accepted inland hill of exchange, drawn by William Mayne Duncanson, on the defendants, in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff at the trial, offered in evidence to the jury, that on the 9th of February X 797, and for some months before and after, the defendants were joint merchants and copartners in trade, under the name and firm of Duncanson <§• Bay. That on the 9th of February 1797, the said Duncanson drew a bill upon the house of Duncanson <§• Ray, of Philadelphia, in favour of the plaintiff, for $2000, at 90 days sight. That on the 15th of February 1797, the said…
1Opinion of the Court
Chase, Ch. J.(a) The court are of opinion that the evidence offered by the plaintiff is improper to be admitted to the jury, and do refuse to suffer the same to go to the jury. The court are also of opinion, and so direct the jury, that if they are of opinion that the bill was drawn for the individual debt of Duneanson, and that the acceptance was made by him without the knowledge or consent of Ray, that then the plaintiff cannot sustain this action.
The plaintiff excepted. Verdict and judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff did not appeal.
Duvall and Done, J. concurring
2Cited by2 opinions
- Manning, Stimpson & Co. v. HaysCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1854
- Cadwallader v. KroesenCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1864