Brown v. Jackson
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania
At .law. Indebitatus assumpsit [by Brown against John Jackson,.for goods sold and delivered, in the first count, and on a bill of exchange, in the second count. Plaintiff recovered a verdict on the first count on a former trial (Case No. 2,015), but consented to a new trial, upon which he recovered the principal and interest of the bill]. This case, in which a new trial was awarded at the last term, — 1 Wash.
Read the full summary
At .law. Indebitatus assumpsit [by Brown against John Jackson,.for goods sold and delivered, in the first count, and on a bill of exchange, in the second count. Plaintiff recovered a verdict on the first count on a former trial (Case No. 2,015), but consented to a new trial, upon which he recovered the principal and interest of the bill]. This case, in which a new trial was awarded at the last term, — 1 Wash. C. C. 512 [Case No. 2,015], — was now tried, and the only question was, as to the claims upon the bill of exchange, or for the original debt for which it was endorsed, and differed only…
1Opinion of the Court
WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice.
If taken in payment as a discharge of a pre-existing debt, or in such a manner as imports an- intention in the endorsee to take the risk of the bill upon himself, it is such a discharge.
The defendant offered witnesses to prove a custom, that in the trade between this country and England, the English merchant receiving a bill endorsed as this is, must- return it immediately on protest to the endorser; that if he call on the drawer for payment, he exonerates the endorser. This being objected to, the counsel, in support of the evidence, cited [Keppele v. Carr] 4 Dall.…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Corn Exchange Bank v. . Nassau BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1883
- Foley v. William Mason & Son ex rel. BirckheadCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1854
- United States v. BuchananSupreme Court of the United States · 1850
- West, Oliver & Co. v. BallSupreme Court of Alabama · 1847
- Astor v. Union InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1827