Hines v. Rogers, Slocumb & Co.

Mississippi Supreme Court

Hines v. Rogers, Slocumb & Co.

1 Miss. 486

DecidedDecember 15, 1831

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Miss. 486 (Hines v. Rogers, Slocumb & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hines v. Rogers, Slocumb & Co., 1 Miss. 486 (Mich. 1831).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT — by

Chief Justice TURNER.

Debt on specialty — plea, payment; bill of exceptions to charge of court. ‘

[487]*487When plaintiff declared on this note, payable to a mercantile firm; and set forth the name of the firm, and described the note, the plea of payment admitted the note as described; even in case, on such a note, without seal, the law would be the same, unless defendant pleaded non assumpsit on oath, than plaintiff would have to prove the eriecutioB of the note. Que-sce — -Whether ho need prove more?

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

OPINION OF THE COURT — by

Chief Justice TURNER.

Debt on specialty — plea, payment; bill of exceptions to charge of court. ‘

[487]*487When plaintiff declared on this note, payable to a mercantile firm; and set forth the name of the firm, and described the note, the plea of payment admitted the note as described; even in case, on such a note, without seal, the law would be the same, unless defendant pleaded non assumpsit on oath, than plaintiff would have to prove the eriecutioB of the note. Que-sce — -Whether ho need prove more?

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Miss. 486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hines-v-rogers-slocumb-co-miss-1831.