Rodman v. Hutchinson
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN ERROR. On a writ of error to the District Court for the City and County of Philadelphia, it appeared that Margaret Hutchinson brought an action on the case in that Court to June term, 1830, against William R. Rodman.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. On a writ of error to the District Court for the City and County of Philadelphia, it appeared that Margaret Hutchinson brought an action on the case in that Court to June term, 1830, against William R. Rodman. The plaintiff declared in indebitatus assumpsit, for work and labour done and materials furnished, for goods sold and delivered, and money had and received, and on an account stated; alleging in every count that the defendant was indebted to her in the sum of $600, and laying the damages at $1000. The defendant pleaded non-assumpsit and payment, &c. On the trial before Jones,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Kennedy, J. —
Though six errors have been assigned, yet two questions only .are presented by them. First, Had the Court below jurisdiction of the cause ? And secondly, If it had, ought the judgment rendered by it, on the verdict for the plaintiff below, to have been without costs ? In order that these questions may be correctly answered, we must refer to the act of assembly passed the 30th of March, 1811, (5 Smith’s L. 123,) entitled “An act to provide for the erection of an additional Court within the city and county of Philadelphia.” Under the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Bright v. Murray, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Schuylkill County1872
- Gault v. VinyardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1856