Legal Opinion

M'Carty v. Rhea

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided July 15, 1820PublishedCited by 11 opinions

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

  1. Mandeville v. Joseph Riddle & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1803

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. City of North Muskegon v. ClarkCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1894
  2. Lindsey v. LindseyMississippi Supreme Court · 1954
  3. United States v. American Express Co.Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1911
  4. Walters v. WaltersMississippi Supreme Court · 1937
  5. Norfolk & Portsmouth Traction Co. v. C. B. White & Bros.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1912

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API