Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Mccullum Vs. Coxe

Mccullum vs Coxe

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1785
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/77881

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
1 U.S. 139
Subject
Labour and Industrial

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Labour and Industrial

Key legal issue
Labour and Industrial

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mccullum

Respondent

Coxe

Excerpt

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.

Full 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.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial