Source: United States Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania
Date: 1806-10-01
Jurisdiction: United States
Citation: 2 F. Cas. 461 · 1 Wash. C. C. 461
Opinion
WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice, charged the jury. The argument, founded on the idea of the plaintiff being the agent of Niblie, is ingenious, and would be sound, if the case would bear it out. If the plaintiff had not been the creditor of Niblie, we might have considered him as his agent. But, as the case is, it is nothing more than a promise by the defendant, to pay to the plaintiff, a creditor of Niblie, a debt due to him by Niblie, and the bill is evidence of this promise.
It is of no consequence, if the defendant, instead of having paid a part, had previously ■discharged the whole of his debt to Niblie; he is still bound to fulfil his engagement to the plaintiff. Verdict for plaintiff, for his whole demand.