McDaniel v. Riggs

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

McDaniel v. Riggs

16 F. Cas. 14, 3 D.C. 167, 3 Cranch 167

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

DecidedMay 15, 1827

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 16 F. Cas. 14 (McDaniel v. Riggs) 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

McDaniel v. Riggs, 16 F. Cas. 14, 3 D.C. 167, 3 Cranch 167 (circtddc 1827).

Pincite

Opinion

Ceanch, C. J.,

thought that as this was an action for money

had and received, which is an equitable action, the plaintiff must show that ex cequo et bono, he was entitled to get back the money ; but as he had received an assignment of the judgment at the time of paying the money to Riggs, (which was a valuable consideration,) and still held that assignment, Riggs, who had lawfully received the money, had a right to retain it; especially as McDaniel was still bound as special bail.

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

Ceanch, C. J.,

thought that as this was an action for money

had and received, which is an equitable action, the plaintiff must show that ex cequo et bono, he was entitled to get back the money ; but as he had received an assignment of the judgment at the time of paying the money to Riggs, (which was a valuable consideration,) and still held that assignment, Riggs, who had lawfully received the money, had a right to retain it; especially as McDaniel was still bound as special bail.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 F. Cas. 14, 3 D.C. 167, 3 Cranch 167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdaniel-v-riggs-circtddc-1827.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack