Nicholson v. Dixon's Heir
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- Reynolds v. Hurst (W. Va. 1881)
- Davis' Adm'rs v. Mead (Va. 1856)
- Ragsdale v. Hagy (Va. 1852)
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 of the Court
November 9th 1816,
prónounced the following opinion of this Court:—
“ The Court is of opinion, that the declaration in this case “ is insufficient to warrant a Judgment on behalf of the present “ Appellant, in this; that it only avers a non-payment of the “ debt sued for to Robert Matthews the obligee, and to the “ plaintiff, but does not aver a non-payment to John and Joshua “ Nicholson the immediate assignees of the said- Matthews, or “ either of them, during the life of the said Joshua, which “ Joshua, the Appellant, is stated to have survived : and al= “ though, in point of law, a payment to either of them, during “ the life of Joshua, may have been considered as a payment to “ the plaintiff, and so have satisfied the terms of the averment “ last mentioned, the Court is of opinión that an averment of “ this character is not sufficient, under several decisions of this “ Court, and particularly that in the case of Buckner v. Blair, “ June 1811.
Note. See 2 Munf. 336; also Braxton's adm'x. v. Lipscomb, Ibid. 282; Green v. Dulany, Ibid. 518; and Norvell v. Hudgins, 4 Munf. 496.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.