McCormick v. Walker

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

McCormick v. Walker

15 F. Cas. 1336, 1 Hayw. & H.D.C. 86, 1842 U.S. App. LEXIS 548

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

DecidedMay 28, 1842

StatusPublished

This text of 15 F. Cas. 1336 (McCormick v. Walker) 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

McCormick v. Walker, 15 F. Cas. 1336, 1 Hayw. & H.D.C. 86, 1842 U.S. App. LEXIS 548 (circtddc 1842).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff, through his counsel, moved for a new' trial: Because THE COURT ex[1337]*1337pressed an opinion that a promise made by the defendant to pay the note at a time when he was of full age, was made under duress because the witness told him if he did not pay. he would be sued, which opinion the plaintiff, by his counsel contends is erroneous at law. Because THE COURT said in the progress of the trial, that upon a promise of defendant to pay when able, the plaintiff was bound to prove that the defendant was able to pay before action brought. Because THE COURT said, that an acknowledgment made after maturity of a debt contracted while defendant was a minor, and a promise to pay would not be sufficient unless the defendant was aware at the time of the promise that he was discharged of the debt by reason of his minority; all of which expressions of opinion influenced the jury in their verdict, and were, as the plaintiff contends, erroneous in law.

The motion was overruled.

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

The plaintiff, through his counsel, moved for a new' trial: Because THE COURT ex[1337]*1337pressed an opinion that a promise made by the defendant to pay the note at a time when he was of full age, was made under duress because the witness told him if he did not pay. he would be sued, which opinion the plaintiff, by his counsel contends is erroneous at law. Because THE COURT said in the progress of the trial, that upon a promise of defendant to pay when able, the plaintiff was bound to prove that the defendant was able to pay before action brought. Because THE COURT said, that an acknowledgment made after maturity of a debt contracted while defendant was a minor, and a promise to pay would not be sufficient unless the defendant was aware at the time of the promise that he was discharged of the debt by reason of his minority; all of which expressions of opinion influenced the jury in their verdict, and were, as the plaintiff contends, erroneous in law.

The motion was overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 F. Cas. 1336, 1 Hayw. & H.D.C. 86, 1842 U.S. App. LEXIS 548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccormick-v-walker-circtddc-1842.