Mandeville v. the Union Bank of Georgetown

Decision Date08 February 1815
Citation13 U.S. 9,9 Cranch 9,3 L.Ed. 639
PartiesMANDEVILLE v. THE UNION BANK OF GEORGETOWN
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Absent. LIVINGSTON, J. TODD, J. and STORY, J.

ERROR to the Circuit Court for the district of Columbia, for

the county of Alexandria, in an action of debt, by the Union Bank against Mandeville, upon his promissory note to C. I. Nourse, indorsed to the bank.

On the trial below a special verdict was found which states the following facts:

On the 15th of January, 1811, Mandeville, then and always an inhabitant of the town of Alexandia, (in the county of Alexandria) for a valuable consideration made his promissory note at the said town, payable to C. I. Nourse (or order,) sixty days after date; negotiable at the Union Bank of Georgetown; payable at the Bank of Potomac, in Alexandria, for 410 51.

The note was delivered to C. I. Nourse, and on the same day indorsed by him, and offered for discount at the Union Bank, where it was regularly discounted for his use.

On the 30th of the same month, Mandeville being informed that his note had been discounted, made no objection, and said that he had funds to meet it.

The note was not paid when it became due, and was protested for non-payment.

On the 16th of the same month (the day after the date of Mandevilles note) Charles I. Nourse, for a full and valuable consideration, executed and delivered to Mandeville, his note of that date, payable in 60 days for $400, negotiable at the Bank of Alexandria; payable at the Bank of Columbia, (in Georgetown.)

On the 30th of the same month, C. I. Nourse became further indebted to Mandeville by the acceptance of his order of that date, drawn at sight, and by acceptance made payable on the 16th of February following, in favor of C. Page for the use of Mandeville, for 64 dollars—neither of which has been paid. The Union Bank transacts its business in Georgetown, in the county of Washington.

On the 2d of February, 1811, Mandeville inserted an advertisement in the Alexandria Gazette, cautioning all persons against receiving assignments of any notes given by him to Nourse, as he had discounts against them.

Mandeville, in the Court below offered to sett-off the note and acceptances of Nourse, against his own note upon which the suit was brought; but upon the special verdict, the Court below rendered judgment against him for its whole amount; and he brought his writ of error.

By the laws of Virginia, in force in the county of Alexandria, the Defendant is allowed to sett-off against the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Union Producing Co. v. Placid Oil Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • July 1, 1965
    ... ... 'March 9, 1960 ... File 28502 ... 'Mr. Earle L. Peters ... 633 National Bank Building ... Toledo, Ohio ... 'Dear Mr. Peters: ... 'Upon receipt of your letter of March 2, ... ...
  • Merchants & Planters Bank v. Meyer
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • October 22, 1892
    ... ... & El. (N. S.) 578; Forster ... v. Clements, 2 Camp. 17; [56 Ark. 483] ... Mandeville v. Bank, 13 U.S. 9, 9 Cranch 9, ... 3 L.Ed. 639; Lazier v. Horan,55 Iowa 75, 7 ... N.W. 457; ... ...
  • Diebold Safe & Lock Co. v. Dunnegan
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • February 1, 1909
    ... ... 602; ... Hopkins v. Cowan, 47 L. R. A. 124, 44 A. 1062; ... Bank v. Bangs, 102 Mass. 291; Hardy v ... Munroe, 127 Mass. 64; Emery v ... ...
  • The Bedford Bank v. Acoam
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • November 12, 1890
    ... ... this constitutes a proper debit in the account of the ... depositor, and in Mandeville v. Union Bank, ... 13 U.S. 9, 9 Cranch 9, 3 L.Ed. 639, Chief Justice Marshall ... said: "By ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT