Bond v. Allen

Circuit Court of North Carolina

Bond v. Allen

3 F. Cas. 834

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of North Carolina·Decided July 1, 1796·Published

Opinion

THE COURT

(PATERSON, Circuit Jus-

tice, and SITGREAYES, District Judge),

held that the fourth and fifth sections of that act must be taken together; that the defendant ought to ha Ye entitled himself to the benefit of the fourth section, by showing he had complied with the requisites of the fifth; and as this was not set forth, the plea was overruled. See Blount v. Porterfield, 2 Hayw. [N. C.) 161; McLin v. McNamara, 2 Dev. & B. Eq. 82; Salter v. Blount. Id. 218.

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

THE COURT

(PATERSON, Circuit Jus-

tice, and SITGREAYES, District Judge),

held that the fourth and fifth sections of that act must be taken together; that the defendant ought to ha Ye entitled himself to the benefit of the fourth section, by showing he had complied with the requisites of the fifth; and as this was not set forth, the plea was overruled. See Blount v. Porterfield, 2 Hayw. [N. C.) 161; McLin v. McNamara, 2 Dev. & B. Eq. 82; Salter v. Blount. Id. 218.

Bond v. Allen, 3 F. Cas. 834 (circtnc 1796).

Pincite

3 F. Cas. 834 (Bond v. Allen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.