Sutton v. Mandeville
This text of 23 F. Cas. 471 (Sutton v. Mandeville) 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.
Opinion
said that the question was premature, until evidence of malice should be offered, when it might come properly before the court on an objection to the evidence. But THE COURT permitted the plaintiff to give evidence of fatigue, trouble, vexation and expenses occasioned by the attempt to prove him a bankrupt. And afterwards permitted the plaintiff to go into evidence of malice in aggravation of damages.
THE COURT also permitted the defendant to give evidence of the circumstances and conduct of John Sutton, which would have [472]*472amounted to acts of bankruptcy, if he had been a proper subject of the bankrupt law, in mitigation of damages and to repel the suggestion of malice. But refused to admit evidence that the commissioners of bankruptcy had erred in their judgment.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
23 F. Cas. 471, 1 Cranch 187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sutton-v-mandeville-circtddc-1804.