Gardner & Johnson v. Tennison
2 D.C. 338
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia
DecidedOctober 15, 1822
StatusPublished
This text of 2 D.C. 338 (Gardner & Johnson v. Tennison) 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
Gardner & Johnson v. Tennison, 2 D.C. 338 (circtddc 1822).
Opinion
on the motion of the plaintiff’s counsel, instructed the jury, that if they should be satisfied by the evidence that the account was assigned by the plaintiffs to Lay, and that the defendant had notice of such assignment, his payments to the plaintiffs after such notice, could not be given in evidence in this action.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
2 D.C. 338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gardner-johnson-v-tennison-circtddc-1822.