Opinion

Josse v. Shultz

  • 1 D.C. 135
Court
District Court, District of Columbia
Filed
Jul 15, 1803
Status
Published
Author
Kilty
On the bench
Kilty, Marshall
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

Kilty, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court. The acceptance of the note alone is not a discharge of the rent, unless it appears that the note is paid.

But if the jury should be of opinion, from the evidence, that the note was held up by Shultz, and credit given on it to Plankarf, *136 either by taking an additional security on it, or from any other cause, or that by any negligence of Shultz, Josse has lost the sum intended to be secured by the note, these facts,are competent evidence to the jury to show that there was no rent due to Shultz, and that his avowry for such rent is not supported.

MaRshall, J., absent.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.