MORGAN
v.
REINTZEL

U.S. | 1812-03-13
Present....All the Judges., All the Judges being present,
7 Cranch 273 Supreme Court of the United States (1812) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 3 L. Ed. 340 · 1812 U.S. LEXIS 393 · SCDB 1812-029
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
Marshall, Ch. J.

Marshall, Ch. J.

after stating the case, observed that the Court could see no error in the judgment.

The payment of the money by the Plaintiff, under the circumstances stated in the count, was a sufficient consideration for the assumpsit.

The principal objection was that the count ought to have been founded upon the mote, so as to oblige the Plaintiff to produce it on the trial. But it states that the note was paid by the Plaintiff: and the Court5' thinks that the note must have been produced upon the trial.

Judgment affirmed,.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Roach v. Hulings, 16 Pet. 319 (U.S. 1842)
  • Grant v. United States, 307 F.2d 509 (10th Cir. 1962)
    …ceed that which was lawfully imposed on any one count. See: Marteney v. United States (10 C.A.), 218 F. 2d 258, 261, cert. den. 348 U.S. 953, 75 S.Ct. 442, 99 L.Ed. 745, and cases there cited. Cf. Greene v. United States, 358 U.S. 326, 79 S.Ct. 340, 3 L.Ed. 340, and Travis v. United States (10 C.A.), 269 F. 2d 928. Affirmed.…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw