Riddle v. Mandeville
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia
Assumpsit for money had and received. The evidence was a note made by Vincent Gray, March 2d, 179S, to Mandeville & Jamesson, or order; by them indorsed to James McClena-ehan, and by him to the plaintiffs; and the record of a suit by the plaintiffs against Gray, the maker of the note, prosecuted to judgment, execution, and insolvency. It was contended, by the defendants, 1st, That an action will not lie by an indorsee against a remote indorser of a promissory note. 2d.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit for money had and received. The evidence was a note made by Vincent Gray, March 2d, 179S, to Mandeville & Jamesson, or order; by them indorsed to James McClena-ehan, and by him to the plaintiffs; and the record of a suit by the plaintiffs against Gray, the maker of the note, prosecuted to judgment, execution, and insolvency. It was contended, by the defendants, 1st, That an action will not lie by an indorsee against a remote indorser of a promissory note. 2d. That the plaintiff cannot recover on this count; and 3d. That the note was usurious. 1. On the first point, the cases cited…
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT
was of opinion that the action will lie. See the case of Dunlop v. Silver [Case No. 4,169]. MARSHALL, Circuit Judge, contra.
2. The plaintiff cannot recover on the simple •count for money had and received. Because it tends to surprise the defendant. Wood v. Carr’s Ex’rs, 1 Call (Va.) 232. But this objection was unanimously overruled by the •court.
3. The evidence relied on to prove the usury, ■was that the note with the indorsement of the defendants and McClenachan was put into the hands of Simms, a broker, to raise money upon. With the note, which was for ■31500 at 60 days, Simms…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wood v. LuttrelCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1798
3Cited by2 opinions
- Bell v. City of West PointMississippi Supreme Court · 1875
- Standish v. Jackson (In re Albertson)District Court, S.D. West Virginia · 2015