HENDERSON
v.
MOORE

U.S. | 1809-02-01
5 Cranch 11 Supreme Court of the United States (1809) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 3 L. Ed. 22 · 1809 U.S. LEXIS 409 · SCDB 1809-004
Cited by 38 cases
Opinion of the Court
Marshall, Ch¿ J.

Marshall, Ch¿ J.

delivered the opinion of the eourt,

That there was no error in the opinion of the court below. A part of the money due' on the' bond might have been paid before; and such an aclcnowledgment, • upon receipt of a sum smaller than the amount .of the condition of the bond, was good evidence upon the plea of payment.

Judgment affirmed with costs.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (18 total)

  • Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1892)
  • Fairmount Glass Works v. CUB Fork Coal Co., 287 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1933)
    …108. Compare Pierce v. United States, 255 U. S. 398, 405-406. Contrast Reliance Coal & Coke Co. v. H. P. Brydon & Bro., 286 Fed. 827, 832, where the moving party was the defendant, against whom the verdict had gone. See e. g., Henderson v. Moore, 5 Cranch 11, 12; Marine Ins. Co. v. Young, 5 Cranch 187, 191; The “Abbotsford,” 98 U. S. 440, 445; Railway Co. v. Twombly, 100 U. S. 78, 81. In numerous cases no reference is made, in denying review, to the grounds for the motion. E. g., Barr v. Gratz, 4 Wheat.…
  • Holmgren v. United States, 217 U.S. 509 (U.S. 1910)

Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw