Riggs v. St. Clair

District of Columbia

Riggs v. St. Clair

1 D.C. 606

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedDecember 15, 1809

StatusPublished

This text of 1 D.C. 606 (Riggs v. St. Clair) 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

Riggs v. St. Clair, 1 D.C. 606 (D.D.C. 1809).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court

gave the instruction,

(Fitzhugh, J., contra.)

The Court was of opinion that the alteration was immaterial, and did not avoid the note unless it was made with the privity of the plaintiff.

Mr. Caldwell then prayed the Court to instruct the jury that if ihey should be satisfied by the evidence that the note was indorsed by the defendant to give a credit to the note and to be discounted at the bank; that it was not discounted, but passed away by Hamilton to Riggs, who took it in lieu of another smaller note of Hamilton’s and paid the difference in cash, the [607]*607plaintiff cannot recover against the defendant more than the amount of the money so paid.

But the Coukt refused, upon the principle of negotiability of the note. The plaintiff is only bound to show that he came fairly by it, as in the case of a note payable to bearer, and lost or stolen, &c.

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

The Court

gave the instruction,

(Fitzhugh, J., contra.)

The Court was of opinion that the alteration was immaterial, and did not avoid the note unless it was made with the privity of the plaintiff.

Mr. Caldwell then prayed the Court to instruct the jury that if ihey should be satisfied by the evidence that the note was indorsed by the defendant to give a credit to the note and to be discounted at the bank; that it was not discounted, but passed away by Hamilton to Riggs, who took it in lieu of another smaller note of Hamilton’s and paid the difference in cash, the [607]*607plaintiff cannot recover against the defendant more than the amount of the money so paid.

But the Coukt refused, upon the principle of negotiability of the note. The plaintiff is only bound to show that he came fairly by it, as in the case of a note payable to bearer, and lost or stolen, &c.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 D.C. 606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riggs-v-st-clair-dcd-1809.