Josse v. Shultz

13 F. Cas. 1162, 1 Cranch 135
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia·Decided July 15, 1803·No. Case No. 7,551·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

KILTY, Chief Judge.

The acceptance of the note alone is not a discharge of the rent, unless it appears that the note is paid. But if the jury should be of opinion, from the evidence, that the note was held up by Shultz, and credit given on it to Hankart, either by taking an additional security on it, or from any other cause, or that by any negligence of Shultz. Josse has lost the sum intended to be secured by the note, these facts are competent evidence to the jury to [1163]*1163show that there was no rent due to Shultz, and that his avowry for such rent is not supported.

MARSHALL, Circuit Judge, absent.

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

Josse v. Shultz, 13 F. Cas. 1162, 1 Cranch 135 (circtddc 1803).

13 F. Cas. 1162 (Josse v. Shultz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

City of Xenia v. Schmidt
101 Ohio St. (N.S.) 437 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1920)