M'Carty v. Rhea
Indiana Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
HELD, that an assignee of a promissory note cannot sue a remote assignor, where the note assigned is not governed by the law of merchants. Mandeville v. Riddle, 1 Cranch, 290.— Drake v. Johnson, Hardin, 218 (1).
Held, also, that where there is a demurrer to the whole declaration containing several counts, one of which is good, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment. 1 Chitt. Plead. 643 (2).
Mumford v. Fitzhugh, 18 Johns. Rep. 457. So where there is but one count, and part is good and part bad, and the matters divisible; or several breaches in covenant, some well assigned, othersnot; if the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Mandeville v. Joseph Riddle & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1803
3Cited by11 opinions
- City of North Muskegon v. ClarkCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1894
- Lindsey v. LindseyMississippi Supreme Court · 1954
- United States v. American Express Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1911
- Walters v. WaltersMississippi Supreme Court · 1937
- Norfolk & Portsmouth Traction Co. v. C. B. White & Bros.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1912
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.