Rankin v. Woodworth
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error tb Veriangó bounty. This suit, in which Jared Woodiborih was plaintiff, and David Rankin Was defendant, originated on the 29 th November, 1821. It was brought Upon a contrast dated the 9th of February, 1S15> by which Rdnkin and Cochran agreed to build a saw mill for* the plaintiff, and <£to have it Completed by November next.” The defendant plead non assumpsit infra sex anrios.
Read the full summary
Error tb Veriangó bounty. This suit, in which Jared Woodiborih was plaintiff, and David Rankin Was defendant, originated on the 29 th November, 1821. It was brought Upon a contrast dated the 9th of February, 1S15> by which Rdnkin and Cochran agreed to build a saw mill for* the plaintiff, and <£to have it Completed by November next.” The defendant plead non assumpsit infra sex anrios. The plaintiff requested the court to charge the jufy* “that the statute of limita* tion did not begin to run till Woodworth sustained damage; and that he can recover at any time within six years after the defect…
1Per curiam
Viewing this case in the' aspect most favorable to the plaintiff below, by taking the date of the precipe to be satisfactory evidence of the commencement of the action, and it certainly is not Conclusive', — the ¡joint is still against him. By the Contract, the work was to be finished by the ensuing month of November, which, in the popular acceptation of the wordj excludes the month. When a thing is ordered by a particular day, it is with a view of hayihg the use of it On the day. Thus, a coat is ordered *49by Sunday, with a view of wearing it to church. And the popular 'agrees with the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Scheuer & Tiegs, Inc. v. BenedictWisconsin Supreme Court · 1921
- Wachsmuth v. RoutledgeOregon Supreme Court · 1899
- Despeaux v. Pennsylvania R. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania · 1898
- J. C. Engelman Land Co. v. La Blanco Agr. Co.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1922