Wagner v. Watts

28 F. Cas. 1336, 2 D.C. 169, 2 Cranch 169
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia·Decided June 15, 1819·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

The CouRT

gave the instruction as prayed, and further instructed, the jury, that the plaintiff could not recover for any part of the stock of goods which was acquired by Bichards subsequently to the date of the first mortgage, whether such additions to the original stock of goods consisted of goods bought with the proceeds of the sales of the said original stock, or of goods exchanged for the same as aforesaid.

The plaintiff took a bill of exceptions, but no writ of error.

Verdict for defendant.

But see 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 479, 480, and Bucknal et al. v. Roiston,. Prec. in Chan. 285.

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

Wagner v. Watts, 28 F. Cas. 1336, 2 D.C. 169, 2 Cranch 169 (circtddc 1819).

28 F. Cas. 1336 (Wagner v. Watts) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wheeldin v. Wheeler
373 U.S. 647 (Supreme Court, 1963)
German Ins. Co. v. City of Manning
78 F. 900 (U.S. Circuit Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 1897)
Belknap v. Schild
161 U.S. 10 (Supreme Court, 1896)
Ruggles v. Collier
43 Mo. 353 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1869)
Rogers v. Burlington
70 U.S. 654 (Supreme Court, 1866)
McCracken v. City of San Francisco
16 Cal. 591 (California Supreme Court, 1860)
Stamford Bank v. Ferris
17 Conn. 259 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1845)