Young v. Davidson

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

Young v. Davidson

5 D.C. 515

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1838

StatusPublished

This text of 5 D.C. 515 (Young v. Davidson) 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

Young v. Davidson, 5 D.C. 515 (circtddc 1838).

Pincite

Opinion

Assumpsit for work and labor.

Upon the trial, Mr. R. J. Brent, the plaintiffs’ counsel, offered to read in evidence to the jury the deposition of one F. A. Russell, taken de bene esse, before the Mayor of Washington.

Mr. Marbury, for the defendant, objected that the notice to the defendant was given by the plaintiffs, and not by the magistrate, as required by the Act of Congress of 24th September, 1789, § 30, [1 Slat, at Large, 73,] and the CouRT, (Thruston, J., absent,) for that reason rejected the deposition.

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

Assumpsit for work and labor.

Upon the trial, Mr. R. J. Brent, the plaintiffs’ counsel, offered to read in evidence to the jury the deposition of one F. A. Russell, taken de bene esse, before the Mayor of Washington.

Mr. Marbury, for the defendant, objected that the notice to the defendant was given by the plaintiffs, and not by the magistrate, as required by the Act of Congress of 24th September, 1789, § 30, [1 Slat, at Large, 73,] and the CouRT, (Thruston, J., absent,) for that reason rejected the deposition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 D.C. 515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-davidson-circtddc-1838.