Douglass & Mandeville v. McAllister

Supreme Court

Douglass & Mandeville v. McAllister

7 U.S. 298, 2 L. Ed. 445, 3 Cranch 298, 1806 U.S. LEXIS 336

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedFebruary 17, 1806

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 7 U.S. 298 (Douglass & Mandeville v. McAllister) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Douglass & Mandeville v. McAllister, 7 U.S. 298, 2 L. Ed. 445, 3 Cranch 298, 1806 U.S. LEXIS 336 (1806).

Pincite

Opinion

Marshall, Ch. J.

The error complained of is, that the circuit court did not give an opinion on a point proposed. The court was certainly bound to give an opinion, if z-equired, upon any point relevant to the issue.

It appears, from the facts stated, that the cause of action did not accrue until the 19th of November, when the negotiation for a compromise was broken off. A tender of the flour at any time after the 14th, and before the 19th, would have been a compliance with the contract. As the plaintiff claimed no more than the pzice of the flour on the 19th, and as the z-efusal of the court to instruct the jury did not alter the verdict, which was for the price on that day, and was for the same amount as if the opinion had been given, there is no error of which the defendants could complain.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Marshall, Ch. J.

The error complained of is, that the circuit court did not give an opinion on a point proposed. The court was certainly bound to give an opinion, if z-equired, upon any point relevant to the issue.

It appears, from the facts stated, that the cause of action did not accrue until the 19th of November, when the negotiation for a compromise was broken off. A tender of the flour at any time after the 14th, and before the 19th, would have been a compliance with the contract. As the plaintiff claimed no more than the pzice of the flour on the 19th, and as the z-efusal of the court to instruct the jury did not alter the verdict, which was for the price on that day, and was for the same amount as if the opinion had been given, there is no error of which the defendants could complain.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 U.S. 298, 2 L. Ed. 445, 3 Cranch 298, 1806 U.S. LEXIS 336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/douglass-mandeville-v-mcallister-scotus-1806.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack