Brown v. Barry, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 365 (1797), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court determined the following: The suspension of a statute for a limited time is not a repeal of it. The intention of the legislature when discovered must prevail, any rule of construction. declared by previous acts, to the contrary notwithstanding. In an action on a bill of exchange, which had not been protested for non-payment, it is not necessary to aver in the declaration that the bill had been protested for non-acceptance.
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdf:type
| |
rdfs:label
| |
rdfs:comment
| - Brown v. Barry, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 365 (1797), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court determined the following: The suspension of a statute for a limited time is not a repeal of it. The intention of the legislature when discovered must prevail, any rule of construction. declared by previous acts, to the contrary notwithstanding. In an action on a bill of exchange, which had not been protested for non-payment, it is not necessary to aver in the declaration that the bill had been protested for non-acceptance. (en)
|
foaf:name
| |
dcterms:subject
| |
Wikipage page ID
| |
Wikipage revision ID
| |
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
| |
sameAs
| |
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
JoinMajority
| |
ParallelCitations
| |
USPage
| |
USVol
| |
ArgueYear
| |
case
| |
DecideDate
| |
DecideYear
| |
fullname
| |
justia
| |
Litigants
| |
majority
| |
loc
| |
has abstract
| - Brown v. Barry, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 365 (1797), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court determined the following: The suspension of a statute for a limited time is not a repeal of it. The intention of the legislature when discovered must prevail, any rule of construction. declared by previous acts, to the contrary notwithstanding. In an action on a bill of exchange, which had not been protested for non-payment, it is not necessary to aver in the declaration that the bill had been protested for non-acceptance. As to bills of exchange drawn in the United States payable in Europe, the custom of merchants in this country does not ordinarily require, to recover on a protest for non-payment, that a protest for non-acceptance shall be produced, though the bills were not accepted. Where the action is for foreign money, and its value is not averred, a verdict cures the defect. The reason that debet for foreign money is ill, is the uncertainty of its value; and this is cured by a verdict. (en)
|
ArgueDateA
| |
ArgueDateB
| |
openjurist
| |
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
of | |
is Wikipage redirect
of | |
is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |