Reed v. Ingraham
Supreme Court of the United States
THIS was an aftion brought by the aifignee of a ftocfc contract, to recover the amount of the difference, due on the Contraft, which was expreffed in thefe words : “ On the i8tH “ of April 1792,1 promife to receive from Jofepb Beggs, or or- ■ ⅛ der, Ten thoufand dollars, fix per cents, and pay him for the “ fame; at the rate of 23 ihillings and 7 pence 3-4 per pound: (Signed) Francis Ingraham.”
Read the full summary
THIS was an aftion brought by the aifignee of a ftocfc contract, to recover the amount of the difference, due on the Contraft, which was expreffed in thefe words : “ On the i8tH “ of April 1792,1 promife to receive from Jofepb Beggs, or or- ■ ⅛ der, Ten thoufand dollars, fix per cents, and pay him for the “ fame; at the rate of 23 ihillings and 7 pence 3-4 per pound: (Signed) Francis Ingraham.” The aflignment was ipdorfed in thefe words: “ I do hereby authorife William Reed, or his Order, to tender “ or deliver the flock within mentioned, and the faid William “ Reed, or his order, to receive…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court
The action is well brought, as it is founded on a contraft, in which the Defendant exprefsly ftipu-fetes, that he will receive the flock from, and pav the price to, Jofepb Boggs, or bis order. On general principles of taw, nock contraéis cannot be regarded as negotiable; but a con-tralor may certainly make himfelf liable as if they werefo i and the maxim, modus et conventio vincunt leges, applies forcibly to the cafe;
With refpeft to the alledged inconvenience, that in the pre-fent form of a ¿lion the Defendant is debarred from the benefit of a fet-off, it would be enough to…
2Cited by3 opinions
- M'Cormick v. TrotterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1823
- Long v. LaufmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1828
- Frants ex rel. Stine v. BrownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1828