Mandeville v. Jamesson

District of Columbia

Mandeville v. Jamesson

1 D.C. 509

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedJuly 15, 1808

StatusPublished

This text of 1 D.C. 509 (Mandeville v. Jamesson) 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

Mandeville v. Jamesson, 1 D.C. 509 (D.D.C. 1808).

Pincite

Opinion

Cranch, C. J.,

suggested a doubt whether the defendant should be permitted to go into proof that the petitioner is not a creditor, supposing it to be a matter to be decided ex parte at the time of the insolvent’s application, and that primd facie evidence is sufficient.

The CouRT, however,

(Duckett, J., absent,)

went into an examination of the evidence, and was of opinion that the petitioner was a creditor, and that the deed was made with intent to give a preference.

But the Court, by the consent of the parties, continued the cause to the next term.

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

Cranch, C. J.,

suggested a doubt whether the defendant should be permitted to go into proof that the petitioner is not a creditor, supposing it to be a matter to be decided ex parte at the time of the insolvent’s application, and that primd facie evidence is sufficient.

The CouRT, however,

(Duckett, J., absent,)

went into an examination of the evidence, and was of opinion that the petitioner was a creditor, and that the deed was made with intent to give a preference.

But the Court, by the consent of the parties, continued the cause to the next term.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 D.C. 509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mandeville-v-jamesson-dcd-1808.