Mandeville & Jameson v. Joseph Riddle & Co.
5 U.S. 290

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Mandeville & Jameson v. Joseph Riddle & Co., 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 290 290 (1803)

Mandeville & Jameson v. Joseph Riddle & Co.

5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 290

Syllabus

In Virginia, an endorsee of a promissory note cannot maintain an action at law against a remote endorser.

The defendant in error instituted an action for money had and received by the plaintiff in error, the defendant below. The declaration contained this count only, to which there was a plea of the general issue.

The evidence in support of the declaration was a promissory note made by Vincent Gray dated at Alexandria on 2 March, 1798, by which he promised to pay, sixty days after date, to the order of Mandeville & Jameson $1,500 dollars for value received, negotiable at the Bank of Alexandria. This note was endorsed by Mandeville & Jameson, to James McClenachan, and by him to Joseph Riddle & Co. the defendants in error. The protest of a notary public, made on 5 May, 1798, attests that he had on that day demanded payment of the note of the maker, who refused, and of Mandeville & Jameson the first endorsers, who also refused, and that James McClenachan, the other endorser, did not dwell in his district. The record of a suit on the same note brought by Joseph Riddle & Co. on 14 June, 1798, against Vincent Gray the maker, prosecuted to final judgment and execution, upon which execution he was committed to jail and took the oath of an insolvent debtor, and was discharged on 6 February, 1799.

An exception was taken at the trial in the circuit court to the charge of the court, the same being contrary to the request of the counsel of the defendant below. The court refused to charge the jury that the action could not be maintained against the defendant in that court, there being no intermediate endorser between them. This point alone was decided upon this writ of error.

Page 5 U. S. 298

Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.