Scott v. M'Lellan
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Assumpsit, by the indorsee against the defendants as acceptors of a bill of exchange, drawn on them by one Bradshaw. At the trial, which was upon the generahissue, the plaintiff, to prove the authority given by the defendants to draw the bill in question, offered the deposition of Bradshaw himself, who was appointed by the defendants supercargo of the ship Romeo for a voyage on their account, and drew the bill for payment of part of her return cargo of salt.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, by the indorsee against the defendants as acceptors of a bill of exchange, drawn on them by one Bradshaw. At the trial, which was upon the generahissue, the plaintiff, to prove the authority given by the defendants to draw the bill in question, offered the deposition of Bradshaw himself, who was appointed by the defendants supercargo of the ship Romeo for a voyage on their account, and drew the bill for payment of part of her return cargo of salt. This deposition was objected to, on account of the interest of the deponent in the present suit; and was rejected by the presiding…
1Opinion of the Court
Westos J.
Two questions are presented to the consideration of the Court. Is the action sustainable upon the evidence admitted ?■ If not, ought the testimony of Bradshaw, the drawer, which ivas rejected by the Judge, to have been received ?
The defendants are charged upon the common money counts, and as acceptors of a bill of exchange drawn by Bradshaw in favour of James Mxinro or order, and by him indorsed to the plaintiff. The bill was originally drawn in consideration of a *203quantity of salt purchased of the payee by Bradshaw, as the agent of the defendants, which afterwards came to their use.
If…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Hubbly v. Brown & Nichols.New York Supreme Court · 1819
- Wilson v. ClementsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
- Mayhew v. PrinceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
- Platt v. DrakeMichigan Supreme Court · 1844
- Butler v. WarrenNew York Supreme Court · 1814
3Cited by1 opinion
- Oexner v. LoehrMissouri Court of Appeals · 1906