Levy v. Cadet
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Motion, for a new trial on behalf of the defendants, in a suit brought by Levy against Cadet and Hippie, in which a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Motion, for a new trial on behalf of the defendants, in a suit brought by Levy against Cadet and Hippie, in which a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff. This suit was brought on the 20th of July, 1824, on a promissory note, dated the 26th of May, 1816, payable sixty days after date. . Cadet and Hippie, who were partners, were the drawers; Levy was the payee of the note: Cadet suffered judgment by default, and Hippie pleaded non assumpsit, and non assumpsit infra sex ahntis. On. the 4th of June, 1816, the defendants made a general assignment, and on the 11th of October, 1816, Cadet was…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Rogers, J.
If this question were res integra, the court would have no difficulty. The construction of the statute of limitations is embarrassed with decisions, (from an indisposition in courts of justice of former times to carry its wholesome provisions into effect,) which it would be a hopeless task to endeavour to reconcile. An attempt to do so would confuse, rather than elucidate, the point ' now under review, which in Pennsylvania is new, and of some interest. In the modern cases, the statute has been considered as *128entitled to some respect, and not…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jones v. MooreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1813
- Montgomery v. HasbrouckNew York Supreme Court · 1808
3Cited by10 opinions
- Rogers v. BurrSupreme Court of Georgia · 1898
- Houser v. IrvineSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842
- Schoneman v. FegleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1848
- Tillinghast v. Nourse, Stone & Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1854
- Pottash Bros. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1928
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.