Skip to content


Mccullum Vs. Coxe - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number1 U.S. 139
AppellantMccullum
RespondentCoxe
Excerpt:
.....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.
Judgment:
MCCULLUM v. COXE - 1 U.S. 139 (1785)
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.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //