Bond v. Allen

Circuit Court of North Carolina

Bond v. Allen

3 F. Cas. 834

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of North Carolina

DecidedJuly 1, 1796

StatusPublished

This text of 3 F. Cas. 834 (Bond v. Allen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 F. Cas. 834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bond-v-allen-circtnc-1796.