Manning v. Cox

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

Manning v. Cox

16 F. Cas. 644, 4 D.C. 693, 4 Cranch 693

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

DecidedMarch 15, 1836

StatusPublished

This text of 16 F. Cas. 644 (Manning v. Cox) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Manning v. Cox, 16 F. Cas. 644, 4 D.C. 693, 4 Cranch 693 (circtddc 1836).

Pincite

Opinion

CRanch, C. J.,

said, that to support the plaintiff’s action upon this declaration, she must satisfy the jury that there was a duty on the part of the defendant to be violated by not compensating the plaintiff for the services stated in the declaration. But there was no such duty, unless the services were performed at the request of the defendant, either express or implied; and that if they were rendered upon a sudden emergency, and were beneficial to the defendant, his assent might be presumed, unless the contrary appeared in evidence.

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

CRanch, C. J.,

said, that to support the plaintiff’s action upon this declaration, she must satisfy the jury that there was a duty on the part of the defendant to be violated by not compensating the plaintiff for the services stated in the declaration. But there was no such duty, unless the services were performed at the request of the defendant, either express or implied; and that if they were rendered upon a sudden emergency, and were beneficial to the defendant, his assent might be presumed, unless the contrary appeared in evidence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 F. Cas. 644, 4 D.C. 693, 4 Cranch 693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manning-v-cox-circtddc-1836.