Bartleman v. Douglass
This text of 2 F. Cas. 965 (Bartleman v. Douglass) 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.
Opinion
refused to instruct the jury that the agreement and deed did not make a good de-fence at law; being of opinion that the agreement bound the plaintiff to give a release upon the execution of the deed, and a court of equity would have compelled him to execute it; and that in assumpsit it ought to be admitted in evidence on the general issue, it being a fraud upon the defendant as well as upon the other creditors that the plaintiff should refuse to execute the deed after the others had executed it. See Heathcote v. Crookshanks, 2 Term R. 24; Jackson v. Duchaire, 3 Term R. 551; and Jackson v. Lomas, 4 Term R. 166.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2 F. Cas. 965, 1 Cranch 450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bartleman-v-douglass-circtddc-1807.