Travers v. Hight

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

Travers v. Hight

24 F. Cas. 143, 2 D.C. 41, 2 Cranch 41

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

DecidedJune 15, 1812

StatusPublished

This text of 24 F. Cas. 143 (Travers v. Hight) 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

Travers v. Hight, 24 F. Cas. 143, 2 D.C. 41, 2 Cranch 41 (circtddc 1812).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court

(Fitzhugh, J., absent,)

said it was not sufficient. It was neither a positive affidavit that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in a certain sum ; nor was it such an affidavit as made the account evidence per se, under the Act of Assembly of Maryland, 1729, c. 20, ■§> 9, according to the rule in the case of Smith et al. v. Watson, at June term, 1806, in Washington, [1 Crunch, C. C. 311.]

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

The Court

(Fitzhugh, J., absent,)

said it was not sufficient. It was neither a positive affidavit that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in a certain sum ; nor was it such an affidavit as made the account evidence per se, under the Act of Assembly of Maryland, 1729, c. 20, ■§> 9, according to the rule in the case of Smith et al. v. Watson, at June term, 1806, in Washington, [1 Crunch, C. C. 311.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 F. Cas. 143, 2 D.C. 41, 2 Cranch 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/travers-v-hight-circtddc-1812.