About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Daniel Poorman and others v. William A. Woodward and William C. Dusenberry, late partners under the firm of Woodward and Dusenberry U.S. 266 (1859)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0186 and id is 1 raw text is: SUPREME COURT. Poorman et at. v. Woodward et aZ. The Government agent and commissioners took this view of ,these several claims, and but one argument was made in all of them, and that in the case of the brig Enterprise, and but one opinion delivered by the commissioners. As they disagreed, a second argument was made before the umpire. The preparation of the claim of Pemberton, beyond the proofs of the interest of his company in the case of the Creole, was a very- trifling matter; and even these proofs had been already furnished to this Government, at the time the appeal was made there for redress. And as it respects the questions of international law involved in these cases, they had been the subject of repeated discussion between this Government and Great Britain, and also in Congress, by some of the most dis- tinguished statesmen and jurists of the country; and theprep- arationfor the argument of the claim before the board of com- missioners required little else than the labor of digesting and reproducing the principles and reasoning to be found in these discussions. For the reasons above given, we are satisfied the agreement and proofs in the case furnish no legal or just ground for a claim to the sum of money awarded by the court below, and that the decree should be reversed, and the proceedings remit ted, with directions to enter a decree dismissing the bill. DANIEL POQRMAN AND OTHERS V. WILLIAM A. WOODWARD AND WILLIAM C. DUSENBERRY, LATE PARTNERS UNDER THE FIRM OF WOODWARD & DUSENBERRY. Where certain persons gave a joint aud several note for the purpose of raising money, and their agent received a certificate of deposit which certificate was afterwards duly paid upon presentation, the signers of the note cannot escape from their responsibility upon the plea that a certificate of deposit was not money. THIS case was brought up by writ of error from the Circuit Court of the United States for the southern district ot Ohio. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most