Quesnel v. Mussy
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
The Defendant was brought before the Court on a Habeas Corpus, when the following facts appeared; —That this suit had been instituted against him by Mr. Vanuxem, under the authority of a special Letter of Attorney from the Plaintiff, who resided in one of the United States ; that the day after judgment had been, obtained, another person arrived with a general Power of Attorney from the Plaintiff, and that this person, without consulting Mr. Vanuxem, settled with the…
Read the full summary
The Defendant was brought before the Court on a Habeas Corpus, when the following facts appeared; —That this suit had been instituted against him by Mr. Vanuxem, under the authority of a special Letter of Attorney from the Plaintiff, who resided in one of the United States ; that the day after judgment had been, obtained, another person arrived with a general Power of Attorney from the Plaintiff, and that this person, without consulting Mr. Vanuxem, settled with the Defendant, to whom he gave a general release in the name of his constituent. It appeared, also, that the latter Power of…
1Opinion of the Court
The Court
were of opinion, that the general power was sufficient for the purpose of the release; and, having directed the person acting under it, to enter an acknowledgment of satisfaction on the record, they ordered the Plaintiff to be discharged.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Ritchie v. SummersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1803
- Blenon's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843
- Lloyd v. McNamaraSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1852