MCCULLUM v. COXE, 1 U.S. 139 (1785)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Read more

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.


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.

Disclaimer: 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.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.