MCCULLUM v. COXE, 1 U.S. 139 (1785)
1 U.S. 139 (Dall.) M'Cullum Supreme Court of Pennsylvania September Term, 1785U.S. Supreme Court
MCCULLUM v. COXE, 1 U.S. 139 (1785)
v.
Coxe
The jury were at the bar to try the issue in this case, when Levy moved to discontinue, in consequence of a power of attorney granted by the plaintiff for that purpose. But it was opposed by Ingersoll in behalf of General Forman, to whom, for a valuable
consideration, the Plaintiff had assigned the debt, and the defendant had undertaken to pay it to him accordingly.
These facts being made to appear, The Court said they would not allow any collusive settlement between the original parties, to affect General Forman's bona fide assignment, and ordered the jury to be sworn. And M'Kean, Chief Justice, observed, that where an action was brought under such circumstances, it ought to be mentioned upon the docket for whose use; a practise which had always prevailed when he was at the bar.
U.S. Supreme Court
MCCULLUM v. COXE, 1 U.S. 139 (1785)
1 U.S. 139 (Dall.)
M'Cullum
v.
Coxe
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
September Term, 1785
The jury were at the bar to try the issue in this case, when Levy moved to discontinue, in consequence of a power of attorney granted by the plaintiff for that purpose. But it was opposed by Ingersoll in behalf of General Forman, to whom, for a valuable
Page 1 U.S. 139, 140 consideration, the Plaintiff had assigned the debt, and the defendant had undertaken to pay it to him accordingly.These facts being made to appear, The Court said they would not allow any collusive settlement between the original parties, to affect General Forman's bona fide assignment, and ordered the jury to be sworn. And M'Kean, Chief Justice, observed, that where an action was brought under such circumstances, it ought to be mentioned upon the docket for whose use; a practise which had always prevailed when he was at the bar.
