Mandeville & Jameson v. Patton & Scott

• Decision Date: 15 April 1801
• Citation: 7 Va. 9
• Parties: Mandeville & Jameson v. Patton & Scott
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

7 Va. 9

Mandeville & Jameson v. Patton & Scott

Supreme Court of Virginia

April 15, 1801

Patton & Scott brought an action of assumpsit against Mandeville &amp Jameson, in the Hustings Court of Alexandria, and declared upon a note given by the defendants, wherein they promised to deliver to the plaintiffs wet goods and groceries to the amount of 1,800 dollars, at cash price, for value received of William Young. Plea, non assumpsit. Issue.

Upon the trial of the cause, the defendants filed a bill of exceptions to the Court's opinion, which stated, that the defendants offered in evidence as an offset, a note given by Fletcher & Ottoway to the plaintiffs, and assigned by them to the defendants, which is in these words: " 1,125 dollars due July 20-23. Alexandria, 21st April, 1797, ninety days after date, we promise to pay to Messrs. Patton & Scott, or order, eleven hundred and twenty-five dollars, value received, negotiable, in the Bank of Alexandria." The bill of exceptions, after reciting the said note, adds " which note is endorsed by Robert Patton and Charles Scott and Theodorick Lee, and which assignment is in these words, to wit: Pay to the order of Mandeville &amp Jameson." The bill of exceptions then sets forth in haec verba, a protest of the said note on the 24th July, 1797, for non-payment, at the request of the president and directors of the Bank of Alexandria, by the notary public at Alexandria that the plaintiffs objected to the note's being given in evidence; and that the Court would not permit it to go to the jury. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs. The defendants appealed to the District Court, where the judgment was affirmed; and from the judgment of affirmance, the defendants appealed to this Court.

Judgment of the District Court was to be affirmed.

Randolph, for the appellants.

The Court should have suffered the evidence to go to the jury, to have had as much weight as they might have thought proper to give it; because, they would have disregarded it if there was delay in the assignees, and so no inconvenience would have resulted from the reception of it: whereas, the course pursued was calculated to produce great injury to the defendants; for, if they were guilty of no delay or other fault, the note ought to have been discounted, as the plaintiffs were liable in consequence of the failure of the makers to pay. This argument is the stronger, on account of the note's being made...