Allen v. Maclellan
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Certificate from the Nisi Prius. Jan. 23, 1849, reargued Deo. 14. Assumpsit on a promissory note drawn by the defendant at four mouths in favour of Lucretia Bleecker, dated December 5, 1845. On the 16th January, 1846, Wheatley, for himself and Lucretia his wife (late Bleecker), endorsed the note to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Certificate from the Nisi Prius. Jan. 23, 1849, reargued Deo. 14. Assumpsit on a promissory note drawn by the defendant at four mouths in favour of Lucretia Bleecker, dated December 5, 1845. On the 16th January, 1846, Wheatley, for himself and Lucretia his wife (late Bleecker), endorsed the note to the plaintiff. A case was stated in the nature of a special verdict, and the facts were these : The payee of the note was married to Bleecker in 1840. In 1845 a libel for divorce was filed by her in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia, alleging desertion and cruel treatment. The record showed…
1Opinion of the Court
Jan. 8.
Gibson, C. J.
The case which most distinctly recognises the power of a spiritual Court to vacate its sentence when obtained by imposition, is Prudham v. Phillips, stated in Meadows v. The Dutchess of Kingston, Amb. 763, and rather more fully in 1 Harg. Tracts, 456, note. It was tried before Chief Justice Willes in 1737; and, though a Nisi Prius decision, it was quoted with approbation by Lord Apsley. To show, by analogy, that the sen*331tence in a suit of jactitation of marriage, is conclusive in a common-law action, the Chief Justice took a distinction founded on the common-law principle,…
2Cited by19 opinions
- Nixon v. NixonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Dow v. BlakeIllinois Supreme Court · 1893
- Croyle v. CroyleCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1944
- Willetts v. WillettsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
- Carey v. CareySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.