Cox v. Simms

District of Columbia

Cox v. Simms

1 D.C. 238

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedJune 15, 1805

StatusPublished

This text of 1 D.C. 238 (Cox v. Simms) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cox v. Simms, 1 D.C. 238 (D.D.C. 1805).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court decided that the reasonableness of notice was to be decided by the jury.

Cranch, J.,

contra.

Mr. Lee then objected that as the bill is indorsed by Cox (the plaintiff) to Tucker and by Tucker in full to William Murdock, the plaintiff cannot recover unless he show a new assignment to him, (Gorgerat v. McCarty, 2 Dal. 144); but the Court overruled the objection.

The Court, at the prayer of the plaintiff’s counsel, instructed the jury that if they were satisfied, by the evidence, that Simms had no funds in the hands of Stewart, .notice of non-payment was not necessary.

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

The Court decided that the reasonableness of notice was to be decided by the jury.

Cranch, J.,

contra.

Mr. Lee then objected that as the bill is indorsed by Cox (the plaintiff) to Tucker and by Tucker in full to William Murdock, the plaintiff cannot recover unless he show a new assignment to him, (Gorgerat v. McCarty, 2 Dal. 144); but the Court overruled the objection.

The Court, at the prayer of the plaintiff’s counsel, instructed the jury that if they were satisfied, by the evidence, that Simms had no funds in the hands of Stewart, .notice of non-payment was not necessary.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 D.C. 238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-simms-dcd-1805.