Halliday v. M'Dougall

Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors

Halliday v. M'Dougall

1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 390

CourtCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors

DecidedJuly 1, 1799

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 390 (Halliday v. M'Dougall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Halliday v. M'Dougall, 1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 390 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1799).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court of Errors held, that in such an action, where one only was brought in, and the others returned not found, it is sufficient to show that the defendant served, is a member of the firm upon whose contract the action is brought; it is not necessary in such case to prove that the other defendants were members of the firm.

A bill of exchange drawn on one of the states of the Union, payable in another, is regarded as a foreign bill, and a notarial protest is prima facie evidence of its contents.

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

The Court of Errors held, that in such an action, where one only was brought in, and the others returned not found, it is sufficient to show that the defendant served, is a member of the firm upon whose contract the action is brought; it is not necessary in such case to prove that the other defendants were members of the firm.

A bill of exchange drawn on one of the states of the Union, payable in another, is regarded as a foreign bill, and a notarial protest is prima facie evidence of its contents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/halliday-v-mdougall-nycterr-1799.