Matthews v. McStea, 91 U.S. 7 (1875)
U.S. Supreme CourtMatthews v. McStea, 91 U.S. 7 (1875)
Matthews v. McStea
91 U.S. 7
1. It was not until the 16th of August, 1861, that all commercial intercourse between the states designated as in rebellion, and the inhabitants thereof, with certain exceptions, and the citizens of other states and other parts of the United States, became unlawful.
2. A partnership between a resident of dew York and other parties, residents of Louisiana, was not dissolved by the late civil war as early as April 23, 1861, and all the members of the firm are bound by its acceptance of a bill of exchange bearing date and accepted on that day, and payable one year thereafter.
The original cause of action was (inter alia) an acceptance
of a bill of exchange by the firm of Brander, Chambliss & Co., of New Orleans, dated April 23, 1861, payable in one year to the order of McStea and accepted on the day of its date by the firm, whereof Matthews, it was alleged, was then a member. The principal defense, and the only one which presents a federal question, was that at the time when the acceptance was made, the defendant, Matthews, was a resident of the State of New York; that the other members of the firm (also made defendants in the suit, but not served with process) were residents of Louisiana; and that, before the acceptance, the copartnership was dissolved by the war of the rebellion. This defense was not sustained in the common Pleas, and the judgment of that court was affirmed by the court of appeals.
Matthews sued out this writ of error.