¶1said the order and acceptance were to be presumed to be equal to the amount of the debt due from Burford to Minifie, and were an assignment thereof to Long; and that the assignment of the note to Whet-croft, being for the benefit of Minifie, the payment by Burford to Long was a good set-off.
2 D.C. 96
Whetcroft ex rel. Vickers v. White
Decided December 15, 1813
Assumpsit, against the maker of a promissory note indorsed by Burford to Minifie, who indorsed it to Whetcroft in trust for the benefit of Minifie. Minifie, being indebted to Long, gave him an order on Burford to let Long have such goods as he should want. Burford accepted the order. Yiekers and others, credit* ors of Minifie, served an attachment on Burford, and on White, and on Whetcroft.
Cited by 1 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1900
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1813-12-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →