RIDDLE
v.
MOSS

U.S. | 1812-03-10
Present....Ml the Judges., All the Judges being present.
7 Cranch 206 Supreme Court of the United States (1812) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 3 L. Ed. 317 · 1812 U.S. LEXIS 388 · SCDB 1812-025
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
Marshall, Ch. J.

Marshall, Ch. J.

delivered the opinion of the Court 'to the following effect.

The Court is of, opinion that Welch, the co-obligor, Was interested, and Whs therefore ap incompetent wit-. ness. It was a consideration of some importance that he had given Moss <i deed of trust of his effects to indemnify him against this suit; but the principal circumstance was, that Welch’s liability would be increased, to • the, extent of the costs of this suit, if the judgment'should be against Moss.*

Judgment reversed„

*

.The same point was .also decided in the case'.of the Governor of Virginia V.- Evans and others, at this term; which'was the case of a bond with collateral condition. It was a joint action; and all the Defendants were taken, but pleaded separately.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • The United States v. Gordon D. Boyd and others, 5 How. 29 (U.S. 1847)
  • John Winship and others v. The Bank of the United States, 5 Pet. 529 (U.S. 1831)
  • Lyons v. Liberty Nat. Bank, 65 F.2d 837 (D.C. Cir. 1933)
    …hed for the purpose of administering real justice to individuals, will feel much reluctance at the necessity of deciding a cause on a slip in pleading, or on the inadvertence of counsel.” Marshall, C. J., in Sheehy v. Mandeville, 7 Cranch, 208, 217, 3 L. Ed. 317. Construing the amended declaration in connection with the agreement, it sufficiently charges that this money was deposited by the plaintiff with the bank, as the escrow agent of all parties to the agreement, to be paid over in accordance with the…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw