Thompson v. Jameson
Supreme Court of the United States
Error from the circuit court of the district of Columbia, sitting in Alexandria. Thompson, in the year 1795, being indebted to Hadfield, a person residing out of the jurisdiction of the commonwealth of Virginia, and Hadfield being indebted to Jameson and Brown as partners in merchandize, the latter obtained from the county court of Fairfax an attachment in chancery, in the nature of a foreign attachment, to stay the effects of Hadfield in the hands of Thompson, under an act…
Read the full summary
Error from the circuit court of the district of Columbia, sitting in Alexandria. Thompson, in the year 1795, being indebted to Hadfield, a person residing out of the jurisdiction of the commonwealth of Virginia, and Hadfield being indebted to Jameson and Brown as partners in merchandize, the latter obtained from the county court of Fairfax an attachment in chancery, in the nature of a foreign attachment, to stay the effects of Hadfield in the hands of Thompson, under an act of assembly of Virginia, entitled “ An act directing the method of proceeding in “ courts of equity against absent…
1Opinion of the Court
The chief justice
observed, that there was no clause in the declaration stating that Thompson undertook to pay if Hadfield did not, and therefore an action of debt would not lay.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Rapelye v. BaileySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1820
- (HC) Olguin v. KiblerDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2021