Josse v. Shultz

District of Columbia

Josse v. Shultz

1 D.C. 135

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedJuly 15, 1803

StatusPublished

This text of 1 D.C. 135 (Josse v. Shultz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Josse v. Shultz, 1 D.C. 135 (D.D.C. 1803).

Pincite

Opinion

Kilty, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court. 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 Plankarf, [136]*136either 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 show that there was no rent due to Shultz, and that his avowry for such rent is not supported.

MaRshall, J., absent.

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

Kilty, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court. 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 Plankarf, [136]*136either 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 show that there was no rent due to Shultz, and that his avowry for such rent is not supported.

MaRshall, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 D.C. 135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/josse-v-shultz-dcd-1803.