Supreme Court of the United States, 1806

Douglass & Mandeville v. McAllister

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided February 17, 1806 · Marshall

7 U.S. 298; 2 L. Ed. 445; 3 Cranch 298; 1806 U.S. LEXIS 336 (United States Reports)

Counsel

This question was submitted, without argument, by Swann, for the plaintiffs in error, and E. J. Lee, for the defendant.

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

Sult v. Leonard (District Court, W.D. North Carolina 1954)
Schmeller v. United States (6th Cir. 1944)
State Ex Rel. Mta v. Ind. Rev. Bd. (Ind. Ct. App. 1968)
State ex rel. Mass Transportation Authority v. Indiana Revenue Board (Ind. Ct. App. 1968)
Robert Blassingill v. Waterman Steamship Corporation, a Corporation (9th Cir. 1964)
Easterly v. Barber (New York Supreme Court 1874)
A. Thompson & Co. v. Howes (La. 1859)
Parsons v. Brown (New York Supreme Court 1853)
State v. Brette (La. 1851)
Colquitt v. Thomas (Ga. 1850)
Linn v. Ross (N.J. 1837)
Christian v. Miller (Va. 1831)
Dunlop v. Patterson (New York Supreme Court 1825)
Jared v. Goodtitle (Ind. 1818)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Marshall, Ch. J.

The error complained of is, that the circuit court did not give an opinion on a point proposed. The court was certainly bound to give an opinion, if z-equired, upon any point relevant to the issue.

It appears, from the facts stated, that the cause of action did not accrue until the 19th of November, when the negotiation for a compromise was broken off. A tender of the flour at any time after the 14th, and before the 19th, would have been a compliance with the contract. As the plaintiff claimed no more than the pzice of the flour on the 19th, and as the z-efusal of the court to instruct the jury did not alter the verdict, which was for the price on that day, and was for the same amount as if the opinion had been given, there is no error of which the defendants could complain.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.