M'Carty v. Rhea

Indiana Supreme Court

M'Carty v. Rhea

1 Blackf. 55, 1820 Ind. LEXIS 3

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 15, 1820

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 1 Blackf. 55 (M'Carty v. Rhea) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

M'Carty v. Rhea, 1 Blackf. 55, 1820 Ind. LEXIS 3 (Ind. 1820).

Pincite

Opinion

HELD, that an assignee of a promissory note cannot sue a remote assignor, where the note assigned is not governed by the law of merchants. Mandeville v. Riddle, 1 Cranch, 290.— Drake v. Johnson, Hardin, 218 (1).

Held, also, that where there is a demurrer to the whole declaration containing several counts, one of which is good, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment. 1 Chitt. Plead. 643 (2).

Mumford v. Fitzhugh, 18 Johns. Rep. 457. So where there is but one count, and part is good and part bad, and the matters divisible; or several breaches in covenant, some well assigned, othersnot; if the defendant demur generally to the whole, the plaintiff will have judgment. Duppa v. Mayo, 1 Will. Saund. 286, and note 9 —Pinkney v. The inhabitants of Rutland, 2 Will. Saund. 379, and note 14. — Powdick v. Lyon, 11 East, 565. — 1 Chitt. Plead. 643. — Amory v. Brodrick, 5 Barnew. and Ald. 712. — Martin, v. Williams, 13 Johns. Rep. 264.

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

HELD, that an assignee of a promissory note cannot sue a remote assignor, where the note assigned is not governed by the law of merchants. Mandeville v. Riddle, 1 Cranch, 290.— Drake v. Johnson, Hardin, 218 (1).

Held, also, that where there is a demurrer to the whole declaration containing several counts, one of which is good, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment. 1 Chitt. Plead. 643 (2).

Mumford v. Fitzhugh, 18 Johns. Rep. 457. So where there is but one count, and part is good and part bad, and the matters divisible; or several breaches in covenant, some well assigned, othersnot; if the defendant demur generally to the whole, the plaintiff will have judgment. Duppa v. Mayo, 1 Will. Saund. 286, and note 9 —Pinkney v. The inhabitants of Rutland, 2 Will. Saund. 379, and note 14. — Powdick v. Lyon, 11 East, 565. — 1 Chitt. Plead. 643. — Amory v. Brodrick, 5 Barnew. and Ald. 712. — Martin, v. Williams, 13 Johns. Rep. 264.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Blackf. 55, 1820 Ind. LEXIS 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcarty-v-rhea-ind-1820.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack