Higbie v. Hopkins

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania

Higbie v. Hopkins

12 F. Cas. 126, 1 Wash. C. C. 230

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 15, 1805

StatusPublished

This text of 12 F. Cas. 126 (Higbie v. Hopkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Higbie v. Hopkins, 12 F. Cas. 126, 1 Wash. C. C. 230 (circtdpa 1805).

Pincite

Opinion

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice,

informed the jury, that as to the note, it was clearly a loan to Hopkins, and he was bound to use reasonable diligence to receive the money. If the amount of the note had been lost, by his failing to use such diligence, he was liable to the plaintiff. The jury were to weigh the evidence, as to the solvency of the drawer and endorser, when the note became due, and before it was offered to Higbie. When Higbie received information from the bank, •that Joseph Watson had withdrawn the note, it does not appear that any application was then made for it. An offer to return it was made in a month after, and refused. As to the value of the negro, the allegation in the bill,-that he was sold by Higbie to Hopkins, is denied. The answer, then, must be considered as true, unless contradicted by one witness, and circumstances to give it a preponderance.

Verdict for plaintiff.

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

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice,

informed the jury, that as to the note, it was clearly a loan to Hopkins, and he was bound to use reasonable diligence to receive the money. If the amount of the note had been lost, by his failing to use such diligence, he was liable to the plaintiff. The jury were to weigh the evidence, as to the solvency of the drawer and endorser, when the note became due, and before it was offered to Higbie. When Higbie received information from the bank, •that Joseph Watson had withdrawn the note, it does not appear that any application was then made for it. An offer to return it was made in a month after, and refused. As to the value of the negro, the allegation in the bill,-that he was sold by Higbie to Hopkins, is denied. The answer, then, must be considered as true, unless contradicted by one witness, and circumstances to give it a preponderance.

Verdict for plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 F. Cas. 126, 1 Wash. C. C. 230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/higbie-v-hopkins-circtdpa-1805.