Boggs v. Curtin
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Roland Curtin, and Moses Boggs, John Mitchel and David Mitchel, (the two former composing thefirm of Curtin and Boggs, the two latter that of J. and D. Mitchel,) defendants in error, and plaintiffs below, brought this action of assumpsit against Jlndrew Boggs, in the Court of Common Pleas of Indiana county, and declared for money paid laid out and expended by the plaintiffs for the use of the defendant, and at his special influence and request.
Read the full summary
Roland Curtin, and Moses Boggs, John Mitchel and David Mitchel, (the two former composing thefirm of Curtin and Boggs, the two latter that of J. and D. Mitchel,) defendants in error, and plaintiffs below, brought this action of assumpsit against Jlndrew Boggs, in the Court of Common Pleas of Indiana county, and declared for money paid laid out and expended by the plaintiffs for the use of the defendant, and at his special influence and request. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit and the statute of limitations., and issues were joined. On the trial the plaintiffs proved that Boggs, the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court, (TilghmAn, C. J. being absent,) was delivered by,
Gibson, J.
The action of assumpsit must be joint or several accordingly as the promise on which it is founded, is joint or several. Where the promise is express, there can be little difficulty in determining to which class it belongs, as its nature necessarily appears on the face of the contract itself; and if it be joint, all to whom it is made, must, or at least may sue on it jointly, and after having recovered, settle among themselves the proportion of the damages to which each is respectively entitled: as in the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Archer v. DunnSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
- Lee v. GibbonsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1826