Mandeville v. Union Bank of Georgetown, 9 Cranch 9 (1815). · Go Syfert
Search
Mandeville v. Union Bank of Georgetown, 9 Cranch 9 (1815). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
26 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 20 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1904 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1904 1965 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Clements v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
E.D. Wash. · 2019 · confidence medium
Co. v. LaPlante, 480 13 U.S. 9, 16 (1985) (recognizing that exhaustion of tribal remedies serves to prevent 14 federal courts from “impairing [tribal courts’] authority over reservation affairs”). 15 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 16 1.
discussed Cited "see" Temistocles Ramirez De Arellano v. Caspar W. Weinberger, Secretary of Defense (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Meigs v. M’Clung’s Lessee, 13 U.S. (9 Cranch) 11 , 3 L.Ed. 639 (1815); see also Grisar v. McDowell, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 363 , 18 L.Ed. 863 (1868).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Pueblo of Jemez v. United States
D.N.M. · 2018 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See , e.g. , Meigs v. M'Clung's Lessee , 13 U.S. 11 , 17-18, 9 Cranch 11 , 3 L.Ed. 639 (1815) (holding that unilateral action of United States' agents cannot give meaning to bilateral treaty); City of New Town v. United States , 454 F.2d 121 , 125 (8th Cir. 1972) (holding that administrative action may not alter boundaries of an Indian reservation).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Temistocles Ramirez De Arellano v. Caspar W. Weinberger, Secretary of Defense
D.C. Cir. · 1984 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Meigs v. McClung’s Lessee, 13 U.S. (9 Cranch) 11 , 3 L.Ed. 639 (1815). .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Cayuga Indian Nation Ex Rel. Patterson v. Cuomo
N.D.N.Y. · 1983 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Meigs v. McClung’s Lessee, 13 U.S. (9 Cranch) 11 , 3 L.Ed. 639 (1815); Johnson v. M’Intosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 542 , 5 L.Ed. 681 (1823); Patterson v. Jenks, 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 216 , 7 L.Ed. 402 (1829).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mandeville
v.
the Union Bank of Georgetown
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 18, 1815.
9 Cranch 9
Marshall, Todd, Story.
1811
Marshall, Ch. J.

delivered the opinion of the Court as follows:

It is entirely immaterial whether this question be governed by the laws of Virginia or of Maryland' By neither of them can the discounts claimed by the Plaintiff in error be allowed.

By making a note negotiable in bank, the maker authorizes the hank to advance on his credit to the owner of the note the sum expressed on its face.

It would be a fraud on the bank to set up offsets against tins note in consequence of any transactions between the parties. These offsets arevaivd and cannot, after the note has been discounted, be again s t up.

The. judgment is to be affirmed with damages at the rate of 6 percent, per annum.