Riddle v. Mandeville

U.S. District Court

Decided November 15, 1802

U.S. District Court · decided 1802-11-15

Assumpsit for money had and received. The evidence was a note made by Vincent Gray, March 2d, 179S, to Mandeville & Jamesson, or order; by them indorsed to James McClena-ehan, and by him to the plaintiffs; and the record of a suit by the plaintiffs against Gray, the maker of the note, prosecuted to judgment, execution, and insolvency.

Cited by 2 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2015

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1802-11-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

THE COURT

¶1was of opinion that the action will lie. See the case of Dunlop v. Silver [Case No. 4,169]. MARSHALL, Circuit Judge, contra.

¶22. The plaintiff cannot recover on the simple •count for money had and received. Because it tends to surprise the defendant. Wood v. Carr’s Ex’rs, 1 Call (Va.) 232. But this objection was unanimously overruled by the •court.

¶33. The evidence relied on to prove the usury, ■was that the note with the indorsement of the defendants and McClenachan was put into the hands of Simms, a broker, to raise money upon. With the note, which was for ■31500 at 60 days, Simms purchased flour from Scott which he sold for $1200 cash, and paid it to McClenachan.

¶4THE COURT refused unanimously to instruct the jury that the transaction was usurious.

¶5A bill of exceptions was taken on the two first points, and the judgment reversed in the supreme court of the United States. See 1 Cranch [5 U. S.] 290.