Gardner v. Lindo
9 F. Cas. 1191, 1 Cranch 78
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia·Decided March 15, 1802·No. Case No. 5,231·Published·Cited by 3 cases
Opinion
refused to admit the act of limitations to be given in evidence. See [Lindo v. Gardner] 1 Cranch [5 U. S.] 343; [note B., Append.] Id. 402, 405. After verdict for the plaintiff, it was moved, in arrest of judgment, 1st, That debt will (not lie on a promissory note. 2d, That it does not appear that letters of administration were granted to the plaintiff. 3d, That the action is in the debet and detinet.
THE COURT, at a subsequent term, decided that debt would lie on a promissory note, and that the other two objections were too late after verdict.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Gardner v. Lindo, 9 F. Cas. 1191, 1 Cranch 78 (circtddc 1802).
9 F. Cas. 1191 (Gardner v. Lindo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Railway Officials' & Employes' Acc. Ass'n v. Wilson
100 F. 368 (Eighth Circuit, 1900)
Less v. English
85 F. 471 (Eighth Circuit, 1898)
Gay v. Joplin
13 F. 650 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri, 1882)