Hart v. James

Decided September 15, 1788

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1788-09-15

THESE actions were brought upon three promissory notes, two of which (included in one declaration) had been indorsed to the Bank; and the third was in the possession of Messrs. Hartshorne and Large, as a collateral security from the Plaintiffs, for the payment of a debt amounting to nearly the sum mentioned in the note.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1788-09-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently January 1945

5 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1the Court seemed clearly of opinion, that the first report could not be maintained; that the supplementary report was irregular; and that the rule of reference to report to next term, did not authorise the issuing executions upon the report into office during the vacation (particularly without notice to the Defendant) although a term had intervened between the entering of the rule, and the appointment of the Referees.

¶2No opinion was given on the other points, but the execution and report were, for the above reasons, set aside, and the actions, by consent, referred de novo.