Union Bank of Georgetown v. Mackall

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

Union Bank of Georgetown v. Mackall

24 F. Cas. 564, 2 D.C. 695, 2 Cranch 695

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

DecidedMay 15, 1826

StatusPublished

This text of 24 F. Cas. 564 (Union Bank of Georgetown v. Mackall) 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

Union Bank of Georgetown v. Mackall, 24 F. Cas. 564, 2 D.C. 695, 2 Cranch 695 (circtddc 1826).

Pincite

Opinion

Which instruction the Court gave; but, at the prayer of the defendant’s counsel, (Mr. Jones,) further instructed them, that, if they should find, from the evidence, that the defendant brought the said suit in Montgomery county, upon which the plaintiffs rely, as evidence of the consent above imputed to the defendant, with the concurrence of the president of the bank, as agent, and for the advantage of the bank, and with an express understanding that it should not affect his liability as teller, for the receipt of the said check; and that, at the time when the said check was received, and when the said suit was brought, the said defendant was not bound to make good the said check to the plaintiffs, but had taken the same under the usage aforesaid, as sanctioned by the bank, then the circumstance of his so having treated the cheek as his own, does not entitle the plaintiffs to recover in this action.

The verdict and judgment were for the defendant. The plaintiffs took a bill of exceptions, but no writ of error was prosecuted.

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

Which instruction the Court gave; but, at the prayer of the defendant’s counsel, (Mr. Jones,) further instructed them, that, if they should find, from the evidence, that the defendant brought the said suit in Montgomery county, upon which the plaintiffs rely, as evidence of the consent above imputed to the defendant, with the concurrence of the president of the bank, as agent, and for the advantage of the bank, and with an express understanding that it should not affect his liability as teller, for the receipt of the said check; and that, at the time when the said check was received, and when the said suit was brought, the said defendant was not bound to make good the said check to the plaintiffs, but had taken the same under the usage aforesaid, as sanctioned by the bank, then the circumstance of his so having treated the cheek as his own, does not entitle the plaintiffs to recover in this action.

The verdict and judgment were for the defendant. The plaintiffs took a bill of exceptions, but no writ of error was prosecuted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 F. Cas. 564, 2 D.C. 695, 2 Cranch 695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/union-bank-of-georgetown-v-mackall-circtddc-1826.