Open main menu


Court Documents

United States Supreme Court

18 U.S. 313

Marshall  v.  Beverley

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Virginia.

Carter Beverley, being indebted to the appellant, Horace Marshall, assigned to him several bills of exchange, amounting, in the aggregate, to 900l. sterling, which had been drawn by the respondent, Peter R. Beverley, on Bird Beverley, of London, in favour of the said Carter Beverley. These bills were severally transferred, for valuable consideration, by the appellant, to Luke Tiernan & Co., Stewart Montgomery & Co., Jesse Eichelberger & Co., and Cornelius and John Comegys; and having been forwarded by them to London for payment, were protested for non-acceptance and non-payment, and so returned. Suits were instituted by these parties against Peter R. Beverley, on which he confessed judgments. Having been taken in execution and imprisoned, he gave bond for the prison bounds, which he broke. A second series of suits were brought on the prison bounds bonds, after judgments on which, he filed the present bill against Horace Marshall, Carter Beverley, Luke Tiernan & Co., Stewart Montgomery & Co., Jesse Eichelberger & Co., Cornelius and John Cornegys, and John Brown, charging usury in the transactions between Carter Beverley and Horace Marshall, and a fraudulent sale of certain slaves of Carter Beverley, on which Horace Marshall retained a collateral security for his debt; and charging, also, that although the suits were in the name of Luke Tiernan and others, (to whom the bills and been transferred,) they were, in fact, for the complainant's benefit, he having paid to his endorser what was due on those bills. On these grounds, a perpetual injunction was prayed for and awarded. The appellant, by his answer, admitted the last allegation; but denied the usury, and insisted that the sales of Carter Beverley's negroes had been made in strict conformity with the deed of trust under which they were sold. None of the other defendants answered the bill.

     March 4th.
      

This cause was argued by the Attorney-General, for the appellant, and by Mr. Jones and Mr. Taylor, for the respondent.

     March 9th.
      

Mr. Justice LIVINGSTON delivered the opinion of the Court.

NotesEdit

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).