CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for www.chanrobles.com


COVINGTON V. COMSTOCK, 39 U. S. 43 (1840)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 39 U. S. 43 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Covington v. Comstock, 39 U.S. 14 Pet. 43 43 (1840)

Covington v. Comstock

39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 43

Syllabus

An action was instituted in the Circuit Court of Mississippi, on a promissory note, dated at and payable in New York. The declaration omitted to state the place at which the note was payable, and that a demand of payment had been made at that place. The court held that to maintain an action against the drawer of a promissory note or bill of exchange, payable at a particular place, it is not necessary to aver in the declaration that the note, when due, was presented at the place for payment, and was not paid, but the place of payment is a material part in the description of the note, and must be set out in the declaration.

An action was instituted in the District Court of Mississippi by the defendant in error, on a promissory note dated at New York, March 2, 1836, by which Covington and McMorris promised to pay four thousand five hundred and sixty dollars and four cents, six months after date, to Nelson, Carleton, and Company, at New York. The note was endorsed by the drawees to the defendant in error, David A. Comstock.

The declaration on the note omits to state the place where the note was payable, and on the trial, the note was offered in evidence, and objected to by the defendant. The court allowed the note to be given in evidence, on which the defendant tendered a bill of exceptions, and a verdict and judgment having been rendered for the plaintiff, this writ of error was prosecuted.





Back
ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for chanrobles.com Search for www.chanrobles.com


Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



www.chanrobles.us




QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

Browse By ->> Volume


cralaw

Browse By ->> Year


cralaw

  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED