Armat v. Union Bank of Georgetown
1 F. Cas. 1129, 2 Cranch 180, 2 D.C. 180
This text of 1 F. Cas. 1129 (Armat v. Union Bank of Georgetown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Armat v. Union Bank of Georgetown, 1 F. Cas. 1129, 2 Cranch 180, 2 D.C. 180 (circtddc 1819).
Opinion
THE COURT (nem. con.) said: This is to be considered as a note destroyed. The plaintiff is admitted to have been owner of the whole note. The holder of the other half cannot aver the same fact, and therefore can never recover upon it. Judgment for the plaintiff.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
1 F. Cas. 1129, 2 Cranch 180, 2 D.C. 180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armat-v-union-bank-of-georgetown-circtddc-1819.