Cox's Administrator v. Jones

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

Cox's Administrator v. Jones

6 F. Cas. 680, 2 D.C. 370, 2 Cranch 370

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

DecidedApril 15, 1823

StatusPublished

This text of 6 F. Cas. 680 (Cox's Administrator 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

Cox's Administrator v. Jones, 6 F. Cas. 680, 2 D.C. 370, 2 Cranch 370 (circtddc 1823).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court

(nem. con.) rejected the evidence, and said the in-dorsement became a new bill. The holder was bound to present the note again to Badeliffe for payment; and, if not paid, to give notice to the defendant, of the non-payment. It would be a fraud in the defendant to indorse the note generally, so as to give a new negotiability to the instrument, and then to set up his secret equity against an innocent holder.

Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.

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

The Court

(nem. con.) rejected the evidence, and said the in-dorsement became a new bill. The holder was bound to present the note again to Badeliffe for payment; and, if not paid, to give notice to the defendant, of the non-payment. It would be a fraud in the defendant to indorse the note generally, so as to give a new negotiability to the instrument, and then to set up his secret equity against an innocent holder.

Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 F. Cas. 680, 2 D.C. 370, 2 Cranch 370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coxs-administrator-v-jones-circtddc-1823.