Bank of Columbia v. Jones

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

Bank of Columbia v. Jones

2 F. Cas. 638, 2 Cranch 516, 2 D.C. 516

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

DecidedDecember 15, 1824

StatusPublished

This text of 2 F. Cas. 638 (Bank of Columbia v. Jones) 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

Bank of Columbia v. Jones, 2 F. Cas. 638, 2 Cranch 516, 2 D.C. 516 (circtddc 1824).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT

(CRANCH, Chief Judge, con■tra)

was of opinion that the names of the •parties stated in the margin were to be considered as part of the plea, and made important by the special demurrer, and that the titling of the cause in the margin would make a part of the record, and adjudged the plea to be bad.

This decision was, afterwards, at this term, overruled, in the case of Bank of Columbia v. Ott’s Adm’rs, [Case No. 878.]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE COURT

(CRANCH, Chief Judge, con■tra)

was of opinion that the names of the •parties stated in the margin were to be considered as part of the plea, and made important by the special demurrer, and that the titling of the cause in the margin would make a part of the record, and adjudged the plea to be bad.

This decision was, afterwards, at this term, overruled, in the case of Bank of Columbia v. Ott’s Adm’rs, [Case No. 878.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 F. Cas. 638, 2 Cranch 516, 2 D.C. 516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-columbia-v-jones-circtddc-1824.