Winchester v. Hackley

• Decision Date: 01 February 1805
• Citation: 2 L.Ed. 299,6 U.S. 342,2 Cranch 342
• Parties: WINCHESTER v. HACKLEY
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

6 U.S. 342

2 Cranch 342

2 L.Ed. 299

WINCHESTER v. HACKLEY.

February Term, 1805

ERROR to the circuit court of the Virginia district.

The plaintiff's declaration stated the claim to be for money paid and advanced by him, for the use of the defendant, now plaintiff in error. Upon the trial of the issue of non-assumpsit, two bills of exception were taken by the counsel for the defendant, in the circuit court, which are brought up with the record. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, for four thousand one hundred and fifty-five dollars, damages.

The first bill of exception stated, that the plaintiff below offered in evidence sundry bills of exchange drawn by the defendant upon the plaintiff, to an amount equal to the balance demanded by the plaintiff of the defendant: and also several accounts current between the defendant, and the mercantile firm of Richard S. Hackley & Co. of the city of New York; of which the plaintiff and Seth B. Wigginton were two; that the said bills of exchange were debited to the defendant in the said accounts, as being due from him to the said Richard S. Hackley & Co. and that the said accounts contained various other articles of debit and credit to a considerable amount, commenced on the ___ day of _____ and continued till the ___ day of _____ when the firm of Richard S. Hackley was changed into that of Richard S. Hackley & Co. and concluded on the ___ day of _____.

That in these accounts, the balance stated to be due from the defendant, to the said Richard S. Hackley, on the ___ day of _____ is transferred, with the consent of the said Richard S. Hackley, to the said Richard S. Hackley & Co. and that the account in which the said balance is so transferred to the said Richard S. Hackley & Co. and the formation of that firm, were communicated by the said Richard S. Hackley himself to the defendant, before the institution of this suit; and that the defendant thereafter, made to the said Richard S. Hackley & Co. several remittances in money and commodities, towards the discharge of the said balance, and addressed to them several letters concerning the same, which remittances and letters came to the hands of the said Richard S. Hackley & Co. Whereupon the defendant moved the court to instruct the jury, that if the balance aforesaid was transferred as aforesaid to Richard S. Hackley & Co. it was not a subsisting debt from the defendant to the plaintiff alone, at the commencement of this suit. But the court (consisting of...