Stone v. Lawrence
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia
Assumpsit, by the payees, against one of the makers of a joint- and several promissory note, dated at Michillimackinaek, on the 31st July, 1819, for $6,497.17, and payable at St. Louis, in the Territory of Missouri, to the plaintiffs or order. Upon the return of the writ, this nóte was produced as the cause of action. The declaration had two counts upon the note, but did not state that it was payable at St. Louis, or dated at Michillimackinaek, or elsewhere.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, by the payees, against one of the makers of a joint- and several promissory note, dated at Michillimackinaek, on the 31st July, 1819, for $6,497.17, and payable at St. Louis, in the Territory of Missouri, to the plaintiffs or order. Upon the return of the writ, this nóte was produced as the cause of action. The declaration had two counts upon the note, but did not state that it was payable at St. Louis, or dated at Michillimackinaek, or elsewhere. There was a third count, for money had and received. moved to enter the defendant’s appearance without bail, and cited the case of Plyer…
1Opinion of the CourtCran'ch, C. J.
The note, being payable at St. Louis, and not so described in the declaration,, cannot be given in evidence upon either of the counts upon the note. There is a substantial difference between the note produced and the note described in the declaration. The plaintiffs were not bound to receive the money at any other place than St. Louis, nor were the defendants bound to pay it at any other place, until they had failed , to pay it at St. Louis, according to the terms of the contract. There is, therefore, a material variance between the note produced and the counts founded upon it.
See the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Page's Administrators v. Bank of AlexandriaSupreme Court of the United States · 1822
- Sheehy v. MandevilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1812
- Hitner v. SuckleyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania · 1810
- Pope v. BarrettU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1816
- Smith v. BarkerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut · 1809
3Cited by1 opinion
- Orr v. HopkinsNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1883